Prompt initiation of triple therapy following hospitalization for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation in the United States: An analysis of the PRIMUS study.

BACKGROUND: Severe exacerbations requiring hospitalization contribute a substantial portion of the morbidity and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid + long-acting ß-agonist + long-acting muscarinic antagonist) is a recommended option for patients who experience recurrent COPD exacerbations or persistent symptoms. Few real-world studies have specifically examined the effect of prompt initiation of triple therapy, specifically among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether prompt initiation of triple therapy following a severe COPD exacerbation was associated with lower risk of subsequent exacerbations and lower health care use and costs and the effects of each 30-day delay of initiation. METHODS: Adults aged 40 years or older with COPD were identified in the Merative MarketScan Databases between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, and were required to meet the following criteria: open or closed triple therapy (date of first closed prescription or last component of open=index treatment date), more than 1 inpatient admission with a primary COPD diagnosis (ie, severe exacerbation) in the prior 12 months (index exacerbation), 12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) index exacerbation, and absence of select respiratory diseases and cancer. Patients were stratified based on timing of open or closed triple therapy after the index exacerbation: prompt (≤30 days), delayed (31-180 days), or very delayed (181-365 days). Multivariable regression controlled for baseline characteristics (age, sex, insurance type, index year, comorbidities, prior treatment, and prior exacerbations) and estimated the odds of subsequent exacerbations, change in the number of exacerbations, and change in health care costs during 12-month follow-up associated with each 30-day delay of triple therapy initiation. RESULTS: A total of 6,772 patients met inclusion criteria (2,968 [43.8%] prompt, 1,998 [29.5%] delayed, and 1,806 [26.7%] very delayed). The adjusted odds of any exacerbation and a severe exacerbation during 12-month follow-up increased by 13% (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.13 [1.11-1.15]) and 10% (1.10 [1.08-1.12]), respectively, for each 30-day delay in triple therapy initiation, and the mean number of exacerbations increased by 5.4% (95% CI = 4.7%-6.1%). There was a 3.0% increase (95% CI = 2.2%-3.8%) in mean all-cause costs and a 3.7% increase (95% CI = 2.9%-4.6%) in total COPD-related costs for each 30-day delay of triple therapy initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Longer delays in triple therapy initiation after a COPD hospitalization result in greater risk of subsequent exacerbations and higher health care resource use and costs. Adequate post-discharge follow-up care and earlier consideration of triple therapy may improve clinical and economic outcomes among patients with COPD. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr Evans is employed by Merative, formerly IBM Watson Health, and Mr Tkacz was employed by IBM Watson Health at the time of this study; Merative/IBM Watson Health received funding from AstraZeneca to conduct this study. Mr Pollack, Dr Staresinic, Dr Feigler, and Dr Patel are employed by AstraZeneca. Dr Touchette, Dr Portillo, and Dr Strange are paid consultants to AstraZeneca. Dr Strange also participates in research grants paid to the Medical University of South Carolina by AstraZeneca, CSA Medical, and Nuvaira, and is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Morair, and PulManage regarding COPD.

Systemic Corticosteroid-related Adverse Outcomes and Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis.

PURPOSE: Nasal polyps (NPs) develop in 20% to 30% of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Severe forms of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) may be treated with systemic corticosteroids (SCSs), which increase the risk for adverse clinical outcomes. This study compared the incidence of SCS-related adverse outcomes and health care resource utilization and costs between patients with CRSwNP who had SCS exposure and those who did not have SCS exposure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used health care claims data from adult patients with CRSwNP identified in the IBMⓇ MarketScanⓇ Databases between January 2003 and June 2019. The first SCS prescription date in SCS users or a matched date in SCS nonusers (controls) represented the index date. Enrollment for ≥1 year before and after the index date was required. SCS-related adverse outcomes and costs were compared between all SCS users and controls, and among subgroups of patients who had claims for 1-3 and ≥4 SCS prescriptions in the 12-month postindex period. Comparisons were also made among SCS users and controls who previously had and did not have NP surgery, and those with and without comorbid asthma. Inverse probability of treatment weights was applied to all comparisons, which were evaluated for a variable-length follow-up period. FINDINGS: SCS users (n = 37,740) had a greater risk for any adverse outcome than controls (n = 7032) (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16). The risk for adverse outcomes was highest in the subgroups that did not have NP surgery and that had ≥4 SCS claims (n = 2993) versus controls who did not have NP surgery (n = 5078) (IRR = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.44). Similarly, patients with asthma and ≥4 SCS claims (n = 4195) had a greater risk for SCS-related outcomes versus controls with asthma (n = 1226) (IRR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19-1.55). SCS users incurred 60% higher all-cause costs versus non-SCS users (P < 0.001). IMPLICATIONS: In patients with CRSwNP, SCS use was associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes and with increased health care costs compared with controls without SCS exposure. Alternative treatment strategies that avoid and/or reduce SCS use may decrease health care costs and the risk for adverse outcomes among patients with CRSwNP.

Estimated prevalence of moderate to severely elevated total homocysteine levels in the United States: A missed opportunity for diagnosis of homocystinuria?

Classical homocystinuria (HCU) is a genetic disorder caused by mutations in the cystathionine beta synthase gene, which results in impaired metabolism of the sulfur-bearing amino acid homocysteine and its accumulation in blood and tissues. Classical HCU can be detected via newborn screening in the United States, but the test is widely acknowledged to miss many patients. While severely elevated homocysteine levels (>100 µmol /L) frequently lead to a classical HCU diagnosis, intermediate levels (>30 to 100 µmol /L), though linked to many of the known complications of HCU, are not always recognized as associated with HCU. We aimed to identify and describe potentially undiagnosed classical HCU patients using a nationally-representative database of administrative claims and laboratory results. We estimated the national prevalence of patients with homocysteine >30 µmol /L, and compared their demographic and clinical characteristics to those of patients with homocysteine levels ≤30 µmol/L. Among 57,580 patients with a homocysteine test result, 1.8% had a value >30 µmol /L. Patients with homocysteine >30 µmol /L were more frequently diagnosed with hypothyroidism (39.2% vs. 20.7%, p < .001) and renal disease (9.7% vs. 5.5%, p < .001), and were more likely to have a prescription for an anxiolytic/antidepressant (44.5% vs. 38.9%), opioid (58.4% vs. 53.1%), steroid (46.4% vs. 42.5%), or thyroid hormone (38.8% vs. 18.8%), compared to patients with homocysteine ≤30 µmol /L (all p < .05). Both groups were equally likely to have a diagnosis of homocystinuria or another disorder of sulfur-bearing amino acid metabolism (3.8% vs. 4.0%, p = .752). The age-adjusted national prevalence of homocysteine >30 µmol /L was estimated at 33,068 (95% CI: 1033 - 35,104). These findings suggest that thousands of people in the US may be living with intermediate to severely elevated homocysteine levels and may require further evaluation for the presence of classical HCU.

Impact of Plan-Level Access Restrictions on Effectiveness of Biologics Among Patients with Rheumatoid or Psoriatic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Novel disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can slow disease progression among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however, some health plans require prior authorization (PA) or step therapy for access to treatments. OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study compared treatment effectiveness among RA and PsA patients with and without plan-level access restrictions to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs). Medication adherence, a component of effectiveness, was also examined as a secondary outcome. METHODS: RA and PsA patients aged 18-64 years with one or more claims for subcutaneous bDMARDs between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015, with plan-level access data available, were identified within the IBM MarketScan claims database. The primary outcome was treatment effectiveness assessed during the 12 months following the first qualifying DMARD claim. Multivariate modeling examined the correlation between access restrictions and treatment effectiveness. Medication adherence during the 12-month follow-up period was also compared between patients with and without access restrictions. RESULTS: Among 3993 RA and 1713 PsA patients, 34.2 and 35.1%, respectively, had access restrictions, of whom 70.5 and 78.9%, respectively, had plans with step therapy. Compared with patients whose plans did not require step therapy, odds of treatment effectiveness were 19% lower (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67-0.98; p  = 0.033) for RA patients and 27% lower (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.98; p = 0.037) for PsA patients in plans with step therapy. Differences in effectiveness were driven by differences in medication adherence, the odds of which were 19% lower (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96; p = 0.014) among RA patients and 29% lower (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94; p = 0.017) among PsA patients in plans with versus without step therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients in plans without access restrictions or with PA only, RA and PsA patients in insurance plans with step therapy had lower odds of treatment effectiveness, mainly due to lower odds of adhering to treatment, during the 12 months following subcutaneous bDMARD initiation.

Are patients with high-risk polycythemia vera receiving cytoreductive medications? A retrospective analysis of real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Patients with polycythemia vera (PV) have a higher mortality risk compared with the general population, primarily driven by cardiovascular disease, thrombotic events (TEs), and hematologic transformations. The goal of risk-adapted therapy in PV is prevention of TEs. Current treatment recommendations indicate that high-risk patients (aged ≥ 60 years and/or with history of TEs) should be managed with cytoreductive medications, phlebotomy, and low-dose aspirin. This noninterventional study was conducted to describe real-world cytoreductive medication treatment in adult patients with PV, stratified by risk, in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan® database. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 2 nondiagnostic claims for PV ≥ 30 days apart, age ≥ 18 years, continuous enrollment during the preindex period (January 1 to December 31, 2012), and continuous enrollment or death during the postindex period (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014). Assessments included patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment with cytoreductive medications. RESULTS: A total of 2856 patients were identified for this analysis, including 1823 with high-risk PV and 1033 with low-risk PV. Mean (SD) age was 62.5 (13.5) years, and 65.9% of patients were male. Preindex comorbid conditions of interest were more common in high-risk than low-risk patients, including hypertension (65.0% vs 43.1%), type 2 diabetes (21.7% vs 10.1%), and congestive heart failure (6.6% vs 0.6%). Among patients who received preindex cytoreductive therapy, the most commonly used medications in high-risk (n = 666) and low-risk (n = 160) patients were hydroxyurea (94.7 and 87.5%, respectively), anagrelide (7.4 and 11.9%), and interferon (1.7 and 4.4%). Among patients who initiated cytoreductive therapy postindex, the most commonly used medications in high-risk (n = 100) and low-risk (n = 35) patients were hydroxyurea (97.0 and 91.4%, respectively), anagrelide (4.0 and 2.9%), and interferon (2.0 and 8.6%). Overall, 42.0% of high-risk and 18.9% of low-risk patients received cytoreductive medication during the preindex or postindex periods. CONCLUSIONS: Despite consistent guideline recommendations for cytoreductive therapy in patients with high-risk PV, this analysis revealed that only a minority of these patients received cytoreductive medication. A notable proportion of high-risk patients with PV would likely benefit from a revised treatment plan that aligns with current guidelines.

Temporal Trends in Survival and Healthcare Costs in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the development of new therapies for multiple myeloma has improved the survival of patients, but newer treatments may also affect healthcare costs. To date, no real-world study has examined the concurrent changes in survival and total healthcare costs over time in patients with multiple myeloma. OBJECTIVE: To examine the temporal changes in survival and healthcare costs among patients with multiple myeloma in the United States. METHOD: This retrospective claims-based cohort study is based on death files in the Truven Health MarketScan Research Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. The study included adults who had at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient claims with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2014; continuous insurance enrollment for at least 12 months before and at least 30 days after the first diagnosis (ie, index date); and no previous malignancy. Patients were followed from the index date through the earliest among (1) the date of death recorded in the death files, (2) the end of enrollment in the MarketScan database, or (3) end of the study (September 30, 2015). The mortality rates and the total all-cause and multiple myeloma-specific healthcare costs per patient per month were compared between patients diagnosed in 2006-2010 and those diagnosed in 2011-2014. RESULTS: A total of 5199 patients were included in the study (2597 diagnosed between 2006 and 2010 and 2602 diagnosed between 2011 and 2014). We found a 35% decrease in the risk for death (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.74) among patients diagnosed in 2011-2014 compared with those diagnosed in 2006-2010. In addition, 18% and 26% increases were found in all-cause and multiple myeloma-specific healthcare costs, respectively, over the same time period (adjusted mean all-cause costs, $13,960 vs $16,449, respectively; adjusted mean multiple myeloma-specific costs, $7476 vs $9422, respectively). CONCLUSION: The percent decrease in mortality in patients with multiple myeloma has been greater than the percent increase in healthcare costs in recent years, which may be attributable to improved treatments for multiple myeloma and changes in disease management. With the mortality rate having decreased more than the increase in healthcare costs over the same time period, the results of this study suggest that although healthcare spending has increased over time, there is a survival benefit.