Pragmatic guidance for embedding pragmatic clinical trials in health plans: Large simple trials aren't so simple.

BACKGROUND: There are unique opportunities related to the design and conduct of pragmatic trials embedded in health insurance plans, which have longitudinal data on member/patient demographics, dates of coverage, and reimbursed medical care, including prescription drug dispensings, vaccine administrations, behavioral healthcare encounters, and some laboratory results. Such trials can be large and efficient, using these data to identify trial-eligible patients and to ascertain outcomes. METHODS: We use our experience primarily with the National Institutes of Health Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Distributed Research Network, which comprises health plans that participate in the US Food & Drug Administration's Sentinel System, to describe lessons learned from the conduct and planning of embedded pragmatic trials. RESULTS: Information is available for research on more than 75 million people with commercial or Medicare Advantage health plans. We describe three studies that have used or plan to use the Network, as well as a single health plan study, from which we glean our lessons learned. CONCLUSIONS: Studies that are conducted in health plans provide much-needed evidence to drive clinically meaningful changes in care. However, there are many unique aspects of these trials that must be considered in the planning, implementation, and analytic phases. The type of trial best suited for studies embedded in health plans will be those that require large sample sizes, simple interventions that could be disseminated through health plans, and where data available to the health plan can be leveraged. These trials hold potential for substantial long-term impact on our ability to generate evidence to improve care and population health.

Role of health plan administrative claims data in participant recruitment for pragmatic clinical trials: An Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) example.

AIM: The purpose of this study is to evaluate HealthCore/Anthem Research Network recruitment strategies, compare response and enrollment rates for different recruitment strategies, and describe demographic and clinical characteristics of responders and enrollees. METHODS: HealthCore/Anthem Research Network, a part of the Health Plan Research Network of the Patient-Centered Clinical Data Research Network, used administrative claims data to identify eligible health plan members for potential participation in the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness study. We approached health plan members, identified with a validated Patient-Centered Clinical Data Research Network common data model computable phenotype, and their clinical providers during November 2017 to August 2018. Providers were offered the option to exclude their patients' participation in Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness prior to our direct patient (member) outreach. Member identification was in two phases: Phase 1: 1 January 2006 to 1 April 2017, and Phase 2: 1 January 2006 to 2 February 2018. Phase 1 consisted of two batches of mail and one phone call per patient. In Phase 2, which included two similar batches of patients, outreach was via either mail or brochure and one phone call. RESULTS: Phase 1 and Phase 2 included 133,373 and 51,777 members, respectively. We engaged 28,593 providers in Phase 1, and 5077 in Phase 2. In Phase 1, 264,158 mixed email/mail messages were delivered to 133,373 members, followed by 90,481 phone calls from November 2017 to February 2018. In Phase 2, after simple randomization to letter or brochure, 51,777 members were sent email/mail or mailed brochure in three waves from May 2018 to July 2018. In this 9-week period, 51,623 communications were sent to 25,914 members in the email/mail group, and 50,160 brochures to 25,863 in the brochure group. Following email/mail or mailed brochure outreach, 16,624 and 16,580 calls were made to the groups, respectively. Overall, 1549 health plan members visited the study portal by 1 September 2018; 355 electronically signed the Informed Consent Form and enrolled. Mailed brochures drove more portal visits in Phase 2, but a lower percentage of responders enrolled. Recruitment was better in Phase 2-2.3 enrollees per 1000 outreach members versus 1.8 in Phase 1. CONCLUSION: This study showed the ability of a health plan within Patient-Centered Clinical Data Research Network to identify potential study participants with administrative claims, and use different outreach methods to facilitate recruitment and enrollment for pragmatic clinical trials.

Administrative claims data to support pragmatic clinical trial outcome ascertainment on cardiovascular health.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Health plan administrative claims data present a cost-effective complement to traditional trial-specific ascertainment of clinical events typically conducted through patient report or a single health system electronic health record. We aim to demonstrate the value of health plan claims data in improving the capture of endpoints in longitudinal pragmatic clinical trials. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study paralleled the design of the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial designed to compare the effectiveness of two doses of aspirin. We applied the ADAPTABLE identification query in claims data from Anthem, an American health insurance company, and identified health plan members who met the ADAPTABLE trial criteria. Among the ADAPTABLE eligible members, we selected overlapping members with PCORnet Clinical Data Research Networks in the 2 years prior to the index date (1 April 2014). PCORnet Clinical Data Research Networks consist of network partners (or healthcare systems) that store their electronic health record data in the same format to support multi-institutional research. ADAPTABLE outcome events-cardiovascular hospitalizations including admissions for myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiac procedures; hospitalizations for major bleeding; and in-hospital deaths-were evaluated for a 2-year follow-up period. Events were classified as within or outside PCORnet Clinical Data Research Networks using facility identifiers affiliated with each hospital stay. Patient characteristics were examined with descriptive statistics, and incidence rates were reported for available Clinical Data Research Networks and claims data. RESULTS: Among 884,311 ADAPTABLE eligible health plan members, 11,101 patients overlapped with PCORnet Clinical Data Research Networks. Average age was 70 years, 71% were male, and average follow-up was 20.7 months. Patients had 1521 cardiovascular hospitalizations (571 (37.5%) occurred outside PCORnet Clinical Data Research Networks), 710 for major bleeding (296 (41.7%) outside PCORnet Clinical Data Research Networks), and 196 in-hospital deaths (67 (34.2%) outside PCORnet Clinical Data Research Networks). Incidence rates (events per1000 patient-months) differed between available network partners and claims data: cardiovascular hospitalizations, 4.1 (95% confidence interval: 3.9, 4.4) versus 6.6 (95% confidence interval: 6.3, 7.0), major bleeding, 1.8 (95% confidence interval: 1.6, 2.0) versus 3.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.9, 3.3), and in-hospital death, 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.47, 0.67) versus 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.74, 0.98), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the value of supplementing longitudinal site-based clinical studies with administrative claims data. Our results suggest that claims data together with network partner electronic health record data constitute an effective vehicle to capture patient outcomes since >30% of patients have non-fatal and fatal events outside of enrolling sites.

Clinical characteristics, patterns of lipid-lowering medication use, and health care resource utilization and costs among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate real-world patient characteristics, medication use, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as defined by 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines, to examine burden of disease and unmet needs, such as potential undertreatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized a nationally representative managed care database to identify newly diagnosed ASCVD patients between January 1, 2007, and November 30, 2012 (index = first ASCVD diagnosis date) in the USA. Patients had ≥12-month pre-index (baseline) and ≥12-month post-index (follow-up) health plan enrollment and no baseline lipid-lowering medication (LLM). Patient characteristics, LLM utilization patterns, HCRU, and costs were examined for all patients and by subgroups based on LLM use pattern and/or follow-up low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. RESULTS: A total of 128,017 ASCVD patients were identified with a mean (SD) age of 59 (13) years, 43.1% female, and 48.8% with ≥36-month follow-up. Within 12-month follow-up, 10.6% had high-intensity statins and 56.9% had no LLM fills. Baseline mean (SD) all-cause costs were $8,852 ($25,608). At 12-month follow-up, mean (SD) all-cause and ASCVD-related costs were $31,443 ($54,040) and $20,289 ($45,159), respectively. The 36-month analyses showed similar distributions. Multivariable analyses showed that age, gender, region, health insurance type, baseline comorbidities, baseline use of specific medications, baseline lipid profiles, and index ASCVD type were significantly associated with all-cause and ASCVD-related health care costs. CONCLUSION: Patients have nonoptimal treatment for ASCVD and substantial HCRU and costs associated with residual risk. Unmet needs and cost burdens of ASCVD patients merit additional investigation.

Initiation Patterns of Statins in the 2 Years After Release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline in a Large US Health Plan.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to characterize changes in statin utilization patterns in patients newly initiated on therapy in the 2 years following the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol management guideline in a large US health plan population. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective, observational study used administrative medical and pharmacy claims data to identify patients newly initiated on statin therapy over 4 quarters prior to and 8 quarters following the release of the guideline (average N/quarter=3596). Patients were divided into the 4 statin benefit groups (SBGs) based on risk factors and laboratory lipid levels as defined in the guideline: SBG1 (with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD]; N=1046/quarter), SBG2 (without ASCVD, with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥190 mg/dL; N=454/quarter), SBG3 (without ASCVD, aged 40-75 years, with diabetes mellitus, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 70-189 mg/dL; N=1391/quarter), SBG4 (no ASCVD or diabetes mellitus, age 40-75 years, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 70-189 mg/dL, estimated 10-year ASCVD risk of ≥7.5%; N=705/quarter). Demographic variables, statin utilization patterns, lipid levels, and comorbidities were analyzed for pre- and postguideline periods. Postguideline, gradually increased high-intensity statin initiation occurred in SBG1, SBG2, and in SBG3 patients with 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%. Moderate- to high-intensity statin initiation gradually increased among SBG4 patients. Recommended-intensity statin choice changed to a greater degree among patients treated by specialty care physicians. Regarding sex, target-intensity statin initiation was lower in women in all groups before and after guideline release. CONCLUSIONS: Prescriber implementation of the guideline recommendations has gradually increased, with the most marked change in the increased initiation of high-intensity statins in patients with ASCVD and in those treated by a specialist.

Barriers to PCSK9 inhibitor prescriptions for patients with high cardiovascular risk: Results of a healthcare provider survey conducted by the National Lipid Association.

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy is recommended for reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Significant risk can remain because of insufficient clinical response or statin intolerance. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type-9 (PCSK9) therapy lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and has recently been shown to lower ASCVD events. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the barriers and challenges experienced with the access and approval reimbursement process for PCSK9 inhibitor prescriptions. METHODS: In 2016, the National Lipid Association conducted an online survey on PCSK9 inhibitor use and barriers to prescription among experienced healthcare workers who provide care to high-risk patients with ASCVD or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). RESULTS: There were 434 respondent healthcare workers with extensive experience in treating lipid disorders. PCSK9 inhibitors are considered by 71.3% of respondent providers with statin-intolerant patients. There were high rates (>85%) of initial denial. The major barriers to approvals were insurer processes, provider documentation (inadequate documentation of maximally tolerated statin dose, diagnostic criteria for FH, number of statins failed if statin intolerant and most recent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), and administrative burden (time, staff, paperwork, and appeals). Provider approval rates for getting ≥75% patients approved were higher for FH (43%) than for ASCVD patients (36%). Among providers with good approval rates, documentation was the most critical factor. Barriers more difficult to overcome include perceived higher threshold requirements by payers, drugs not on formulary, and drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers encounter significant barriers to PCSK9 inhibitor prescriptions; many of these are related to documentation issues and can be overcome with checklists, staff support, and experience.

Lipid-lowering treatment modifications among patients with hyperlipidemia and a prior cardiovascular event: a US retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies demonstrate that, even with use of statins, many patients are unable to meet their LDL-C goals. This study examined modifications to statin and/or ezetimibe therapy among patients with hyperlipidemia and prior history of cardiovascular (CV) events in a US commercially insured population. METHODS: Adults (age ≥18 years) initiating statins and/or ezetimibe between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2008 were identified from HealthCore Integrated Research Database. The index date was the initiation date of statins and/or ezetimibe. All patients had ≥1 medical claims related to myocardial infarction, unstable angina, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, coronary artery bypass graft, or percutaneous coronary intervention within 12 months prior to the index date. Treatment modifications to statins and/or ezetimibe initiated on the index date (index therapy) included permanent discontinuation of any lipid lowering therapy (LLT), rechallenge, switching, subtraction, augmentation, and dose changes. RESULTS: Among 17,902 patients, around 90% initiated with statin monotherapy, followed by statin and ezetimibe combination (3.0%: 18-64 years; 3.8%: ≥65 years). Ten percent or less initiated on high intensity statins. Most common treatment modifications were rechallenging index therapy (25.2%: 18-64 years, 27.0%: ≥65 years), switching (27.5%: 18-64 years, 24.6%: ≥65 years), and permanent discontinuation of any LLT (18.6%: 18-64 years, 21.0%: ≥65 years). Only 10% of patients in both groups underwent dose escalation. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence indicates that few high-risk patients initiate therapy with high-intensity statins. More than 50% of patients underwent a rechallenge or switching. Despite high CVD risk profile, approximately 20% of patients permanently discontinued any LLT. Key limitations: Pharmacy claims do not provide information on whether patients who had a pharmacy fill actually took the medication as prescribed. It is unknown whether rechallenge was a simple delay in filling a prescription or an actual rechallenge of their index therapy. Reasons for treatment discontinuations or modifications were unavailable in claims data.

Cost Effectiveness of Achieving Targets of Low-Density Lipoprotein Particle Number Versus Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level.

A recent analysis of a commercially insured US population found fewer cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in high-risk patients attaining low levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), as measured by LDL particle number (LDL-P) versus low LDL cholesterol (LDL-C). Here, we investigated the cost effectiveness of LDL-lowering therapy guided by LDL-P. Patients were selected from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database and followed for 12 to 36 months. Patients who achieved LDL-P <1,000 nmol/l were placed into the LDL-P cohort, whereas those without LDL-P tests, but who achieved LDL-C <100 mg/dl, were placed into the LDL-C cohort. CVD-related costs included all health plan paid amounts related to CVD events or lipid management. Cost effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, defined as difference in total costs across the cohorts divided by difference in CVD events, measured over follow-up. Each cohort included 2,094, 1,242, and 705 patients over 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up. Patients in the LDL-P cohort received more aggressive lipid-lowering therapy and had fewer CVD events during follow-up compared to patients in the LDL-C cohort. This led to greater pharmacy costs and lower medical costs over time. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates ranged from $23,131 per CVD event avoided at 12 months to $3,439 and -$4,555 at 24- and 36-month follow-up, suggesting a high likelihood that achieving LDL-P <1,000 nmol/l is cost effective. In conclusion, LDL-lowering therapy guided by LDL-P was demonstrated to be cost effective, with greater clinical and economic benefit seen over longer time horizons and with the increased use of generic statins.

Using 'big data' to validate claims made in the pharmaceutical approval process.

Big Data in the healthcare setting refers to the storage, assimilation, and analysis of large quantities of information regarding patient care. These data can be collected and stored in a wide variety of ways including electronic medical records collected at the patient bedside, or through medical records that are coded and passed to insurance companies for reimbursement. When these data are processed it is possible to validate claims as a part of the regulatory review process regarding the anticipated performance of medications and devices. In order to analyze properly claims by manufacturers and others, there is a need to express claims in terms that are testable in a timeframe that is useful and meaningful to formulary committees. Claims for the comparative benefits and costs, including budget impact, of products and devices need to be expressed in measurable terms, ideally in the context of submission or validation protocols. Claims should be either consistent with accessible Big Data or able to support observational studies where Big Data identifies target populations. Protocols should identify, in disaggregated terms, key variables that would lead to direct or proxy validation. Once these variables are identified, Big Data can be used to query massive quantities of data in the validation process. Research can be passive or active in nature. Passive, where the data are collected retrospectively; active where the researcher is prospectively looking for indicators of co-morbid conditions, side-effects or adverse events, testing these indicators to determine if claims are within desired ranges set forth by the manufacturer. Additionally, Big Data can be used to assess the effectiveness of therapy through health insurance records. This, for example, could indicate that disease or co-morbid conditions cease to be treated. Understanding the basic strengths and weaknesses of Big Data in the claim validation process provides a glimpse of the value that this research can provide to industry. Big Data can support a research agenda that focuses on the process of claims validation to support formulary submissions as well as inputs to ongoing disease area and therapeutic class reviews.

Burden of First and Recurrent Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Acute cardiovascular (CV) events have been evaluated in patients with specific comorbidities but have not focused on patients with hyperlipidemia or on the their long-term costs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate incidence of CV events, costs, and resource utilization among patients with hyperlipidemia and baseline risk of CV disease (CVD). METHODS: Patients (age 18 to 64 years) diagnosed with hyperlipidemia or using lipid-modifying medications were identified from administrative claims. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts based on pre-index clinical characteristics-secondary prevention (SP; history of CV event, n = 15 613); high risk (HR; CVD, n = 47 600); and primary prevention (PP; no CV event history or CVD, n = 60 637)-and followed up to 2 years after the CV event. RESULTS: During follow-up, ≥1 new CV event occurred in 43.0% of the SP cohort, 33.9% of HR, and 20.9% of PP; and ≥3 new events occurred in 19.8% of the SP cohort, 12.9% of HR, and 5.5% of PP. Incremental total costs were $19 320 for SP, $20 003 for HR, and $17 650 for PP. Compared with patients with only 1 CV event, the mean 2-year cost was 30% higher in patients with 2 CV events and 48% higher in patients with 3 CV events. Only 50% of HR patients (with or without CV events) received statins. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recurrent CV events had higher total health care costs during 24-month follow-up for each type of CV event. Total health care costs among patients with a CV event were higher for the initial as well as subsequent events. Statins and lipid-modifying medications were significantly underutilized in all cohorts, despite the presence of CVD.

The INITIATOR study: pilot data on real-world clinical and economic outcomes in US patients with type 2 diabetes initiating injectable therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression often results in treatment intensification with injectable therapy to maintain glycemic control. Using pilot data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Anti-diabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens study, real-world treatment patterns among T2DM patients initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine or liraglutide were assessed. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of claims from the OptumInsight™ (OI; January 1, 2010 to July 30, 2010) and HealthCore(®) (HC; January 1, 2010 to June 1, 2010) health insurance databases. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and costs were compared between adults with T2DM initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine pen versus liraglutide. Follow-up outcomes, including glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), hypoglycemia, health care utilization, and costs, were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline, almost one in three liraglutide patients (OI, n = 363; HC, n = 521) had A1C <7.0%, while insulin glargine patients (OI, n = 498; HC, n = 1,188) had poorer health status, higher A1C (insulin glargine: 9.8% and 9.1% versus liraglutide: 7.9% and 7.7%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.001), and were less likely to be obese (insulin glargine: 10.8% and 9.2% versus liraglutide: 17.4% and 18.8%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.01). The percentage of patients experiencing a hypoglycemic event was numerically higher for insulin pen use for both cohorts (OI 4.4% versus 3.0%; HC 6.2% versus 2.3%). During follow-up, in the insulin glargine cohort, annualized diabetes-related costs remained unchanged ($8,344 versus $7,749 OI, and $7,094 versus $7,731 HC), despite a significant increase in pharmacy costs, due to non-significant decreases in medical costs, while the liraglutide cohort had a significant increase in annualized diabetes-related costs ($4,510 versus $7,731 OI, and $4,136 versus $7,111 HC; both P < 0.001) due to a non-significant increase in medical costs coupled with a significant increase in pharmacy costs. CONCLUSION: These descriptive data identified differences in demographic and baseline clinical characteristics among patients initiating injectable therapies. The different health care utilization and cost patterns warrant further cost-effectiveness analysis.

Melding regulatory, pharmaceutical industry, and U.S. payer perspectives on improving approaches to heterogeneity of treatment effect in research and practice.

Effective pursuit of the science and management of heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) relies on the mutual understanding of the perspectives of, and collaboration among, the various stakeholders in health care. In this article, we compare, contrast, and endeavor to find areas of alignment across the perspectives of three such stakeholders -regulators, the biopharmaceutical and device industry, and U.S. payers. First, we discuss how evidence of HTE is generated and could be improved upon. For pharmaceuticals, much of the initial research is conducted by the pharmaceutical industry, guided by basic science but also delimited by potential markets, regulatory approval requirements, trial size considerations, and payer expectations for evidence of value. Once a drug is marketed, further evidence can be generated via combining trial data, conducting meta-analysis, and analyzing real-world results through observational research designs; we explore how these efforts can benefit from cooperation across these stakeholders. Second, we discuss the equally important utilization of HTE evidence so that physicians and patients have access to and can benefit from the learnings from this research. Research findings must be translated into actionable information and guidelines that can be incorporated into everyday practice. Doing so requires interaction and collaboration among all involved, based on facilitated communication as well as further evaluation research. We provide examples of several cross-sectorial initiatives that are under way in this area. Finally, we explore some economic aspects of HTE research as part of the drug development, marketing, and treatment process. Understanding the economic incentives present is fundamental to aligning those incentives to improve the availability and utilization of HTE evidence. Clear understandings among regulators, pharma, and payers about high-value targets, methods to efficiently generate and communicate information, and value propositions can lead to "win-win" scenarios for patients, individual payers, the health care system overall, and the future of drug development in producing new medicines.

Clinical and economic outcomes of the Cincinnati Pharmacy Coaching Program for diabetes and hypertension.

PURPOSE: Value-based insurance designs (VBID) have been developed by health insurance companies and used by employers to allocate health care resources appropriately and to lower patients' out-of-pocket costs for services related to chronic conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Cincinnati Pharmacy Coaching Program (CPCP) on clinical and economic outcomes. The CPCP is a VBID implemented by Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield in Ohio. It provided tailored pharmacist-based educational services and financial incentives to participants. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental pre/post longitudinal study in which patients were identified as they enrolled in the CPCP between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009. Patients could participate in a Diabetes Coaching Program (DCP) or a Heart Healthy Coaching Program (HHCP). Control subjects were selected from patients who were invited but did not choose to participate. Control subjects were matched to intervention cohorts using propensity score matching. Clinical (blood pressure, lipid levels, and hemoglobin A1c) and economic (all-cause and disease-attributable) outcomes were evaluated using within-subject (pre-post) and between-subject comparison (intervention-control) design. RESULTS: A total of 607 patients were enrolled in intervention groups, and 557 control subjects were selected after matching. Significant reductions were found in blood pressure, lipid levels, and hemoglobin A1c after enrollment, and a significantly greater proportion of patients, compared with controls, achieved their clinical goals according to national guidelines in both programs. Hypertension-related cost trends were favorable for HHCP relative to the control cohort. Diabetes-related costs increased for all groups from pre- to post-index, largely driven by office visits and medication costs in the DCP and inpatient/ER visits in the control cohort. CONCLUSION: Results showed significant improvements in all diabetes- and hypertension-related clinical measures. This study shows the effect of a comprehensive VBID on the health of patients with chronic disease.

Incidence of death and recurring acute coronary syndrome after stopping clopidogrel therapy in a large commercially-insured population in the US.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Guidelines support clopidogrel therapy in medically-treated or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients after hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, clopidogrel discontinuation has been associated with increased short-term risks. This study evaluated the risk of adverse outcomes (AOs), defined as death or recurrent ACS, after clopidogrel discontinuation in a managed-care population. METHODS: ACS patients (n = 7625) with ≥1 clopidogrel pharmacy claim from 2001 to 2006 and no AO before discontinuing clopidogrel were identified from administrative claims data. AO occurrences were recorded at 90-day intervals following clopidogrel discontinuation. RESULTS: The mean (SD) duration of clopidogrel therapy for medically-treated, bare metal stent (BMS) and drug eluting stent (DES) patients was 349.2 (393.1) days, 235.6 (383.0) days, and 280.2 (227.1) days, respectively. Among medically-treated patients, Poisson regression analysis showed a 2.19 times higher AO risk (p < 0.01), a 1.63 times greater risk among BMS patients (p < 0.01), and a 1.56 times greater risk for DES patients (p ≥ 0.05) during days 0-90 versus days 91-180 after clopidogrel discontinuation. Sensitivity analysis showed that medically-treated, BMS and DES patients with ≤90 days of clopidogrel therapy had 2.13, 1.68 and 2.40 times higher AO risk, respectively, during days 0-90 versus 91-180 after discontinuation. No significant elevated AO risk was observed after discontinuation in patients on clopidogrel for 91-270 days. Limitations included those associated with the use of administration claims date, the absence of clinical data and lack of knowledge of aspirin use. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who discontinued clopidogrel therapy were at high risk of death or recurrent ACS during the first 90 days. AO risks following discontinuation appeared elevated in patients with ≤90 days of clopidogrel therapy versus those with >90 days of treatment.

Risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients treated with thiazolidinediones in a managed-care population.

BACKGROUND: This study directly compares risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), acute heart failure (AHF), or all-cause death among pioglitazone- and rosiglitazone-treated patients in a managed-care population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients ≥18 years of age, newly initiated on rosiglitazone or pioglitazone between January 1, 2001, and December 12, 2005, were included. The date of the first pharmacy claim for rosiglitazone or pioglitazone was defined as index date. Patients were excluded if they had <1 year continuous eligibility preindex or a preindex insulin claim. Primary outcome measure was time to composite event of AMI, AHF or death among pioglitazone- and rosiglitazone-treated patients. The National Death Index database was accessed to obtain date of death for patients who died during the study period. Propensity score matching was used to control for potential confounders. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate effects of exposure to rosiglitazone and pioglitazone on time to event. A total of 36 628 patients (58% male; mean age, 54 years) were identified. Of the rosiglitazone-treated patients, 602 (4.16%) had an AMI, AHF, or death compared with 599 (4.14%) propensity score-matched pioglitazone-treated patients. No significant difference was observed between matched groups for risk of composite event (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.15; P=0.666) when patients were followed from index date until end of study period, termination of enrollment status, or diagnosis of AMI/AHF/death. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort study directly comparing rosiglitazone and pioglitazone with a propensity score-matched population that includes mortality data, no significant differences were found in the risk of AMI, AHF or death.

Economic evaluation of four angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of achieving JNC 7 blood pressure goals with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cost effectiveness of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan was compared with real world patient chart and claims data from a large US health plan. Patients 18 and older with >or=2 claims for an ARB between May 1, 2002 and December 31, 2005 were identified from the claims database. Patients with a diagnosis of hypertension in the 6-month baseline period before the first (index) ARB claim and ARB-free during baseline were included. Medical charts were randomly sampled from the cohort of identified patients; effectiveness data were obtained from charts and linked to healthcare claims and costs. These data were used to populate the decision analytic model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause and hypertension-attributable costs to achieve JNC 7 goals were measured. Comparisons were made within low and high-dose strata and pooled across ARB doses. RESULTS: 121 472 patients were identified, and charts were randomly abstracted for 1600. Of these, 1293 patients were hypertensive at index. Baseline patient characteristics for the chart group were modestly different from the larger cohort. More patients treated with olmesartan (77.8%) than with losartan (66.5%), valasartan (68.8%), or irbesartan (68.8%) achieved JNC 7 BP goals. In pooled-dose comparisons, cost per patient reaching BP goal was $8964 (all-cause) and $2704 (hypertension-attributable) for olmesartan; compared with $10 848 and $3291 for losartan; $10 557 and $3577 for valsartan; and $13395 and $4325 for irbesartan, respectively. The trend was similar for the dose stratification analysis, except in the comparison between high-dose losartan and olmesartan, where losartan had a lower cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSION: Overall olmesartan was the most effective and cost-saving treatment option compared to losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan for the achievement of JNC 7 BP goals in this managed-care population.

Impact of fixed-dose and multi-pill combination dyslipidemia therapies on medication adherence and the economic burden of sub-optimal adherence.

OBJECTIVE: To compare medication adherence between patients initiating fixed-dose combination versus multi-pill combination dyslipidemia therapies and assess the association between optimal adherence (MPR > or = 80%) and cardiovascular disease (CVD)-associated total healthcare resource utilization (THR) and costs (THC). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The HealthCore Integrated Research Database was used to identify patients > or =18 years newly initiating fixed-dose combination [niacin extended-release (NER) and lovastatin (NERL)] or multi-pill combination therapies [NER and simvastatin (NER/S) or lovastatin (NER/L)] between 1/1/2000 and 6/30/2006 (index date), with minimum 18 months of follow-up. Adherence was measured using medication possession ratio (MPR). Three multivariate models were developed controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. A logistic model evaluated the association between study cohorts and optimal adherence, while negative binomial and gamma models estimated the association between optimal adherence and CVD-associated THR and THC, respectively. RESULTS: In all, 6638 NERL, 1687 NER/S, and 663 NER/L patients were identified. Fixed-dose combination patients were younger [mean (SD) ages of 51.9 (10.5) vs. 56.0 (9.4) [NER/S] and 56.1 (10.6) [NER/L]; p < 0.01], had lower comorbidity (Deyo-Charlson Index 0.50 +/- 0.9 vs. 0.7 +/- 1.1 and 0.6 +/- 1.1, p < 0.01 and p < 0.05) and comprised fewer males (73.1 vs. 83.0% and 77.7%; p < 0.01 and p = 0.1). Fixed-dose combination patients had higher average 1-year MPR versus NER/S and NER/L patients (0.54 +/- 0.35 vs. 0.50 +/- 0.35 and 0.47 +/- 0.34, p < 0.01). NER/S and NER/L patients were 31.3% (95% CI: 22.9-39.5%) and 39.1% (95% CI: 26.7-49.4%) less likely to be optimally adherent than fixed-dose combination patients (p < 0.01). Additionally, optimally adherent patients had 8% and 40% decreases in annual CVD-attributable THR [0.920 (95% CI: 0.857-0.989); p = 0.023] and THC [0.601 (95% CI: 0.427-0.845); p = 0.003] versus sub-optimally adherent patients. Key limitations of the study include the limited ability of MPR to analyze the continuity of medication usage, inability to capture data on other key variables including race, income, and clinical characteristics such as smoking history, absence of laboratory values on all study patients, inability to capture over-the-counter fills of niacin, and inability to show causality of results obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence was significantly higher among patients initiating fixed-dose combination versus multi-pill combination dyslipidemia therapies in this managed-care population. Additionally, patients with optimal adherence had a significantly lower CVD-associated THR and THC versus patients with sub-optimal adherence.

Burden of Alzheimer's disease and association with negative health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of Alzheimer's disease (AD) with common chronic conditions, acute care events, and risk of hospitalization. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort analysis. METHODS: Community-dwelling subjects with a diagnosis of and/or medication for AD were matched to subjects without AD based on age, sex, and geographic region. Administrative claims from commercially insured health plans for medical and pharmacy services provided from January 1, 2000, to March 31, 2006 (inclusive) were analyzed. The Deyo Charlson Index (DCI) was used to assess the number of chronic conditions. The outcomes of interest were risk of fractures and hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 5396 persons with AD and a matched cohort of 5396 persons without the condition, subjects with AD were more likely to have a diagnosis for any of the DCI components, had a higher rate of fractures (17.7% vs 7.9%, P <.00) and other urgent medical events (eg, pneumonia 14.0% vs 6.3%, P <.00), and were more likely to be hospitalized (odds ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval = 1.5, 1.9). There were significant differences in the medication use between the 2 groups, with the use of psychotics/tranquilizers 9-fold higher among persons with AD. CONCLUSION: Persons with AD have higher odds of experiencing a fracture, being hospitalized, and requiring other acute care medical services than those without AD. The disease also is associated with a higher prevalence of common chronic conditions.

Insomnia-related comorbidities and economic costs among a commercially insured population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between insomnia and comorbid conditions, and subsequent effects on total health costs and work productivity in a large managed-care setting. METHODS: Administrative claims data from a large commercially insured population were reviewed for patients with a prescription claim for an insomnia medication or an insomnia-related medical diagnosis, between 1/1/2001 and 12/30/2003. A control group of patients having no insomnia-related medical or prescription claim was identified within this same time period. Propensity score matching methods were used to reduce observed biases between cohorts. Economic costs and comorbidities were evaluated using t-tests for bivariate comparisons, negative-binomial regression to assess the degree of comorbidity, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for cost outcomes and generalized linear models for multivariate cost comparisons. RESULTS: Among both unmatched and matched cohorts, insomnia patients had statistically higher rates of depression, anxiety/phobia, stress, and head pain compared to the controls. After adjusting for patient covariates, insomnia patients had higher predicted healthcare and productivity costs than a cohort of matched control patients ($4434 vs. $3576; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Though identified patients were required to have enrollment in both medical and productivity databases, and the presence of insomnia could not be verified through medical records, these results suggest a significant link between insomnia and higher rates of comorbid conditions, healthcare expenditures and productivity losses. Payers and employers should consider insomnia as a factor in disease-related case-management initiatives.