Rosacea Treatment Satisfaction: Matching Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison Analysis of Metronidazole Gel or Cream vs Azelaic Acid Foam.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in patient-reported treatment side effects and concerns associated with azelaic acid 15% foam (AAF) vs metronidazole cream (MC) and metronidazole gel (MG). METHODS: This study used matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to compare patient-reported outcomes from survey data evaluating rosacea treatments. Outcomes of interest included percentages of patients reporting concerns and side effects and measures of importance of the concerns and tolerability of the side effects. Patients in each analysis (MG vs AAF and MC vs AAF) were matched using stabilized inverse propensity scores. RESULTS: When compared to AAF, MG-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy (54% vs 4%), application (7% vs 3%), and treatment side effects. MC-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy (61% vs 5%) and dryness (8% vs 5%). AAF-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with cost of treatment compared with MG (7% vs 1%) and MC (9% vs 4%). Among patients reporting concerns, level of importance associated with these concerns was similar for AAF-treated patients compared with MG- and MC-treated patients. When compared to AAF-treated patients, MG-treated patients more frequently reported side effects of dryness (26% vs 15%) and uneven skin tone (3% vs 0%), and MC-treated patients more frequently reported side effects of burning (7% vs 3%), itching (7% vs 5%), and redness (7% vs 5%). MG- and MC-treated patients indicated greater intolerance for reported side effects than AAF-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: MG- and MC-treated patients more frequently reported treatment concerns and side effects than AAF-treated patients, and tolerability of those side effects was higher for patients treated with AAF. While treatment cost is a more frequent concern in patients treated with AAF, these patients less frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy and reported similar or greater tolerance to side effects than patients treated with either MC or MG. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(3): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.3679.

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.