Rationale and design of a home-based trial using wearable sensors to detect asymptomatic atrial fibrillation in a targeted population: The mHealth Screening To Prevent Strokes (mSToPS) trial.

Efficient methods for screening populations for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) are needed to reduce its associated mortality, morbidity, and costs. The use of digital technologies, including wearable sensors and large health record data sets allowing for targeted outreach toward individuals at increased risk for AF, might allow for unprecedented opportunities for effective, economical screening. The trial's primary objective is to determine, in a real-world setting, whether using wearable sensors in a risk-targeted screening population can diagnose asymptomatic AF more effectively than routine care. Additional key objectives include (1) exploring 2 rhythm-monitoring strategies-electrocardiogram-based and exploratory pulse wave-based-for detection of new AF, and (2) comparing long-term clinical and resource outcomes among groups. In all, 2,100 Aetna members will be randomized 1:1 to either immediate or delayed monitoring, in which a wearable patch will capture a single-lead electrocardiogram during the first and last 2 weeks of a 4-month period beginning immediately or 4 months after enrollment, respectively. An observational, risk factor-matched control group (n = 4,000) will be developed from members who did not receive an invitation to participate. The primary end point is the incidence of new AF in the immediate- vs delayed-monitoring arms at the end of the 4-month monitoring period. Additional efficacy and safety end points will be captured at 1 and 3 years. The results of this digital medicine trial might benefit a substantial proportion of the population by helping identify and refine screening methods for undiagnosed AF.

Adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab utilization patterns and drug costs among rheumatoid arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utilization patterns of the anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents Humira (adalimumab), Enbrel (etanercept), and Remicade (infliximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare medication costs during the first year of treatment. (Humira is a registered trademark of Abbott Laboratories, IL; Enbrel is a registered trademark of Immunex Corporation, CA; and Remicade is a registered trademark of Janssen Biotech, Inc., PA). METHODS: This retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims included patients who were aged ≥18 years, had ≥2 RA diagnosis codes, and had ≥365 days of persistence with the index anti-TNF. Patients excluded had claims for anti-TNF agents within 6 months before the index date. Refill patterns for adalimumab and etanercept, number of infliximab infusions, time between infusions, and dose per infusion were analyzed for 12 months. Direct anti-TNF medication costs were compared among anti-TNFs for the initial treatment year. RESULTS: Infliximab-treated patients (n = 457) were significantly older than adalimumab- (n = 337) or etanercept-treated patients (n = 902). Time between refills was longer than recommended for 28% and 30% of adalimumab and etanercept refill periods, respectively. Potential cumulative time without therapy was 33 days for adalimumab and 43 days for etanercept. Statistically significant differences in mean per-patient anti-TNF medication costs for the first year were reported for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab ($14,991, $13,361, and $18,139, respectively; p < 0.0001); however, a cost assessment using labeled dosing of the anti-TNF agents with optimal treatment compliance yielded comparable annual medication costs. LIMITATIONS: This analysis only evaluated utilization patterns for selected anti-TNF agents and was not inclusive of other medications that patients may have been using for RA. Absolute patient adherence could not be assessed due to lack of information on how patients were self-administering adalimumab and etanercept or if samples of the agents were made available. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified gaps in patients' refills compared with prescriber recommendations. The infliximab-treated group had infusion patterns consistent with prescribing information. Potential clinical and economic implications of dose attenuation with adalimumab and etanercept should be explored further.

Impact of infliximab adherence on Crohn's disease-related healthcare utilization and inpatient costs.

INTRODUCTION: Few published reports have described the impact of adherence with biologic agents on hospitalizations and inpatient costs in Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis using the IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database between September 1, 2004 and June 30, 2009 was conducted. Continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 12 months after the index date was required. Patients were required to have ≥2 claims with an International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modification diagnosis code for CD (555.xx) preindex, be ≥18 years of age at index, and have ≥4 infliximab infusions with a gap no greater than 12 weeks between each infusion. Patients with 7-9 infliximab infusions (12 months postindex) were considered adherent; patients with 4-6 infliximab infusions were considered nonadherent. RESULTS: In total, 638 patients were included in the analyses (mean age, 43 years; 58% female in the adherent group and 53% in the nonadherent group). The number of patients who met the definition of adherence was 466 (73%). A smaller proportion of adherent patients had a CD-related emergency room visit, compared with nonadherent patients (11% vs. 17%, P=0.029). A smaller proportion of adherent patients required CD-related hospitalization, compared with nonadherent patients (8% vs. 12%, P=0.117). Among those hospitalized, adherent patients had fewer mean [median] days in the hospital (5.9 [5] days), compared with nonadherent patients (12.8 [8] days, P=0.015). Mean [median] hospital costs were significantly lower for adherent patients ($13,427 [$9,352]), compared with nonadherent patients ($37,783 [$28,864], P=0.001). Multivariate analyses confirmed lower inpatient (P<0.001) costs for adherent versus nonadherent patients. CONCLUSION: Adherence with infliximab therapy during the first year of treatment in patients with CD was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay and lower inpatient costs compared with nonadherent patients. Strategies for increasing adherence rates to infliximab maintenance therapy may be valuable in reducing hospitalizations and inpatient costs in patients with CD.

Impact of persistence with infliximab on hospitalizations in ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess infliximab infusion patterns in ulcerative colitis (UC) and assess the impact of persistence with infliximab maintenance therapy on UC-related hospitalizations, lengths of stay, and inpatient costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of medical claims for UC patients newly initiating infliximab treatment. METHODS: Patients were aged >18 years and had 2 UC diagnosis codes, an infliximab index date between September 1, 2005, and January 31, 2008, and continuous enrollment for >12 months before and >14 months after the index date. Infliximab induction (first 56 days postindex) and maintenance (>56 days and <12 months postinduction) patterns were evaluated. Of patients with maintenance treatment, persistence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of >80%, and this group was compared with those without persistence (<80% MPR). RESULTS: Overall, 420 patients were included in the analysis; 84.3% (n = 354) continued to maintenance therapy. Maintenance infusion patterns were consistent with recommended prescribing information. A smaller proportion of patients with maintenance therapy persistence required hospitalization compared with patients without persistence (3.0% vs 20.4%; P <.001). Hospitalized patients with maintenance therapy persistence had significantly lower mean inpatient costs ($14,243 vs $32,745; P = .046), with a trend toward shorter mean lengths of stay (6.67 vs 9.71 days; P = .147) than patients without persistence. CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab maintenance therapy persistence in UC was associated with significantly fewer hospitalizations. Once hospitalized, patients with therapeutic persistence had significantly decreased inpatient costs.

The economic effect of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the outpatient setting: the payer perspective.

Oral antibiotic therapy can reduce complications and costs compared with intravenous (IV) therapy. The object of this study was to determine the health economic and resource utilization effects of outpatient treatment with oral linezolid relative to IV vancomycin. Longitudinal claims data from 80 health care plans were used. Patients 18 years and older, who did not have osteomyelitis, with a pharmacy claim for linezolid or vancomycin between January 1, 2002 and March 31, 2004 were eligible. Clinical and resource utilization data were collected for 12 months before and 35 days after treatment. Patients treated with linezolid were matched with controls treated with vancomycin, based on propensity scoring. Direct medical costs paid by health plans were compared. A total of 1,048 matched pairs were identified. Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Patients with linezolid claims had lower resource utilization versus those with vancomycin claims during follow-up, including fewer mean physician office visits (4.1+/-5.7 vs. 8.4+/-13.8 visits; P< .001); lab/diagnostic claims (6.3+/-18.0 vs. 10.4 +/-15.2 claims; P< .001); pharmacy claims (7.3+/-8.1 vs. 13.6+/-17.4 claims; P< .001); emergency room visits (9.7% vs. 13.9%; P= .003) and hospitalization (15.3% vs. 19.1%; P= .024). Patients receiving vancomycin were more likely to be hospitalized or have an emergency room visit than patients receiving linezolid. Mean total adjusted cost was 4,707 dollars less for linezolid compared with vancomycin (8,401dollars vs. 13,108 dollars; P< .001). Similar trends were observed for patients matched based on complicated skin and soft tissue infection diagnosis. Outpatient treatment with oral linezolid was associated with significantly lower resource utilization and total medical costs compared with IV vancomycin.