Budget Impact Analysis of Intensification with iGlarLixi Compared to Alternative Treatment Strategies Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical benefits of treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with fixed-ratio combination of insulin iGlar (iGlar) plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) were demonstrated in clinical trials and real-world evidence studies; however, its cost impact to healthcare payers is unknown. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed from a United States (US) payer's perspective for a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million people over a 1-year time horizon. In scenario analysis, patients with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treated with 60 units or less of daily insulin (insulin cohort) or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only (OAD cohort) were intensified to iGlarLixi/rapid-acting insulin (RAI)/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or iGlarLixi/iGlar/GLP-1RA, respectively. Model inputs from real-world data (RWD) included baseline market shares, proportion of patients intensifying to respective treatments, and dosing inputs; unit costs were obtained from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of individual parameters. RESULTS: Intensification with iGlarLixi resulted in the lowest incremental per member per month (PMPM) budget impact compared to other intensifying drugs (iGlar, RAI, and GLP-1RA). In the insulin cohort, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi ($0.03) was the lowest among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($72.20) and RAI ($4.81). Similarly, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi was the lowest ($1.25) in the OAD cohort among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($321.65) and iGlar ($114.82). In scenario analyses, when equal market intensification shares for iGlarLixi and GLP-1RA were explored, the incremental PMPM cost for iGlarLixi ($0.03) remained lower than GLP-1RA ($2.28) and RAI ($10.44) in the insulin cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Intensification with iGlarLixi was associated with lower costs compared to other treatment intensifications, as well as overall budget reductions compared to pre-intensification when considering cost savings attributable to reduction in HbA1c; therefore, its inclusion for the treatment of T2DM would represent a budget saving.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation.

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with ablation both as individual treatments and as combination therapy without/with considering the order of treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the economic impact of AADs (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and as a group) versus ablation across three scenarios: direct comparisons of individual treatments, non-temporal combinations, and temporal combinations. The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidance as per current model objectives. Results are reported as costs per patient per year (PPPY). The impact of individual parameters was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA). Results: In direct comparisons, ablation had the highest annual medication/procedure cost ($29,432), followed by dofetilide ($7661), dronedarone ($6451), sotalol ($4552), propafenone ($3044), flecainide ($2563), and amiodarone ($2538). Flecainide had the highest costs for long-term clinical outcomes ($22,964), followed by dofetilide ($17,462), sotalol ($15,030), amiodarone ($12,450), dronedarone ($10,424), propafenone ($7678) and ablation ($9948). In the non-temporal scenario, total costs incurred for AADs (group) + ablation ($17,278) were lower compared with ablation alone ($39,380). In the temporal scenario, AADs (group) before ablation resulted in PPPY cost savings of ($22,858) compared with AADs (group) after ablation ($19,958). Key factors in OWSA were ablation costs, the proportion of patients having reablation, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Conclusion: Utilization of AADs as individual treatment or in combination with ablation demonstrated comparable clinical benefits along with costs savings in patients with AFib.

A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies.

Aim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by $242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time.

Identification of Patients with Statin Intolerance in a Managed Care Plan: A Comparison of 2 Claims-Based Algorithms.

BACKGROUND: While statins are safe and efficacious, some patients may experience statin intolerance or treatment-limiting adverse events. Identifying patients with statin intolerance may allow optimal management of cardiovascular event risk through other strategies. Recently, an administrative claims data (ACD) algorithm was developed to identify patients with statin intolerance and validated against electronic medical records. However, how this algorithm compared with perceptions of statin intolerance by integrated delivery networks remains largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the concurrent validity of an algorithm developed by a regional integrated delivery network multidisciplinary panel (MP) and a published ACD algorithm in identifying patients with statin intolerance. METHODS: The MP consisted of 3 physicians and 2 pharmacists with expertise in cardiology, internal medicine, and formulary management. The MP algorithm used pharmacy and medical claims to identify patients with statin intolerance, classifying them as having statin intolerance if they met any of the following criteria: (a) medical claim for rhabdomyolysis, (b) medical claim for muscle weakness, (c) an outpatient medical claim for creatinine kinase assay, (d) fills for ≥ 2 different statins excluding dose increases, (e) decrease in statin dose, or (f) discontinuation of a statin with a subsequent fill for a nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy. The validated ACD algorithm identified statin intolerance as absolute intolerance with rhabdomyolysis; absolute intolerance without rhabdomyolysis (i.e., other adverse events); or as dose titration intolerance. Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) from the integrated delivery network with at least 1 prescription fill for a statin between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012 (first fill defined the index date) were identified. Patients with ≥ 1 year pre- and ≥ 2 years post-index continuous enrollment and no statin prescription fills in the pre-index period were included. The MP and ACD algorithms were applied to the population, and concordance was examined using individual (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) and overall performance measures (i.e., accuracy, Cohen's kappa coefficient, balanced accuracy, F-1 score, and phi coefficient). RESULTS: After applying the inclusion criteria, 7,490 patients were evaluated for statin intolerance. The mean (SD) age of the population was 51.1 (8.5) years, and 55.7% were male. The MP and ACD algorithms classified 11.3% and 5.4% of patients as having statin intolerance, respectively. The concordance of the MP algorithm was mixed, with negative classification of statin intolerance measures having high concordance (specificity 0.91, NPV 0.97) and positive classification of statin intolerance measures having poor concordance (sensitivity 0.45, PPV 0.21). Overall performance measures showed mixed agreement between the algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both algorithms used a mix of pharmacy and medical claims and may be useful for organizations interested in identifying patients with statin intolerance. By identifying patients with statin intolerance, organizations may consider a variety of options, including using nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies, to manage cardiovascular event risk in these patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi US. Boklage is employed by, and owns stock in, Regeneron, and Charland is employed by Sanofi. Bellows has received fees from Avenir for advisory board membership and grants from Myriad Genetics, Biogen, Janssen, and National Institutes of Health. Brixner reports advisory board and consultancy fees and grants from Sanofi. Mitchell reports consultancy fees from Sanofi. Study concept and design were contributed by Bellows, Boklage, Charland, and Brixner. Bellows, Sainski-Nguyen, and Olsen took the lead in data collection, along with Mitchell. Data interpretation was performed by Mitchell, along with the other authors. The manuscript was written by Bellows, Sainski-Nguyen, and Olsen and revised by all the authors.

Achievement of optimal combined lipid values in a managed care setting: is a new treatment paradigm needed?

BACKGROUND: Published guidelines suggest the management of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglyceride (TG) values after the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal is achieved. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the attainment of optimal combined lipid values (LDL-C, HDL-C, and TGs) and associated therapy over time. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted among managed-care patients who had a baseline lipid panel taken between October 1, 1999, and September 30, 2000; were naive to lipid therapy; and had plan eligibility for at least 12 months before and 12 to 36 months after the baseline lipid values. Patients were categorized as elevated-risk primary prevention (ERP) or as coronary heart disease (CHD) and CHD risk equivalents (CHD-RE). The attainment of optimal combined lipid values was assessed at baseline and quarterly thereafter. Associations between lipid values and the use of lipid-altering therapy were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 30,348 patients were monitored for a mean (SD) duration of 27 (8) months. Mean (SD) age was 66 (12) years and 55% (16,549/30,348) were men; 43% (13,059/30,348) were categorized as ERP and 57% (17,289/30,348) as CHD-RE. Combined lipid values were optimal in 14% (4167/30,348),18% (5508/30,348), and 22% (2936/13,100) of patients at baseline, 12 months, and 36 months, respectively. After 36 months, 78% (10,164/13,100) of patients did not attain optimal combined lipid values. Lipid therapy, primarily statin monotherapy (87% [7992/ 92251), was prescribed in 30% (9225/30,348) of patients. After 36 months, 34% (4492/13,100) of patients had isolated elevated LDL-C and 20% (2588/13,100) had non-optimal HDL-C and/or TGs. Lipid therapy was associated with the attainment of optimal combined values for LDL-C and TGs (both, P < 0.05), but not for HDL-C. Because the study was retrospective, causality cannot be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, use of combination lipid therapy and targeted therapy aimed at the specific lipid abnormalities may increase the attainment of optimal lipid parameters.

Burden of illness of hepatitis C from a managed care organization perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to: (1). determine the total hepatitis C virus (HCV)related and total healthcare costs (HCV plus other co-morbidities) of patients with HCV in a managed care organization; (2). determine total healthcare costs of HCV patients with and without a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection as a comorbidity. METHODS: The study design was a retrospective analysis of a medical and pharmacy claims database of patients diagnosed with HCV in a 325000 member managed care organization. Patients diagnosed with HCV and 12 months of continuous eligibility in the managed care organization from January 1997 through December 1999 were included in the study. The main outcome measures of the study were the total healthcare costs and HCV-related healthcare costs and the impact of HIV as a co-morbidity on these costs. RESULTS: The study identified 614 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. The study population was 58% male and had a mean age of 46 (+/- 10.6) years. In patients receiving interferon-alpha, their median total healthcare costs exceeded US dollars 4600 and the median HCV-related costs exceeded US dollars 2470. The total healthcare costs of HCV patients with HIV as a co-morbidity were significantly larger than patients without this comorbidity. CONCLUSION: HCV represents a very important disease to managed care organizations. Patients with this disease require costly drug therapies and consume significant health care resources. Additional research is needed to more fully characterize future clinical and economic outcomes as new agents become available.