Real-world treatment utilization and economic implications of lupus nephritis disease activity in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lupus nephritis (LN) is a common and severe complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with approximately 40% of patients with SLE developing LN. Even with treatment, 10%-30% of patients will progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although many studies have assessed the clinical value of low disease activity in LN, the economic implications are less defined. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment utilization and health care costs associated with active disease, low disease activity, and ESRD in patients with LN. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Optum pharmacy and medical claims data from 2015 to 2019 was performed and included patients with a diagnosis of SLE (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or Tenth Revision codes 710.0 or M32, respectively) and additional prespecified criteria for LN. Total health care payer costs for medical and pharmacy services and treatment utilization for commonly prescribed medications were determined for periods of low disease activity, active disease, or ESRD. RESULTS: A total of 21,251 patients (mean age 60.3 years; 87% female; 55% White patients and 18% Black patients) with a mean follow-up period of 30.6 months were included; the majority of patients had active disease (67.3%), followed by low disease activity (51.3%), and ESRD (10.5%). Glucocorticoids were used 2 times more often and mycophenolate mofetil was used 4 times more often in patients with active disease vs low disease activity. Glucocorticoids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus were more commonly used in patients with ESRD vs those with low disease activity. Mean medical costs were $4,777 per month in active disease and $18,084 per month in ESRD vs $2,523 per month in low disease activity. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment burden and costs are high for patients with active disease and ESRD in LN. Treatments that allow patients to achieve and maintain low disease activity may help improve patient outcomes and reduce medication use and overall health care costs. DISCLOSURES: Maria Dall'Era and Kenneth Kalunian are consultants of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals. Eric Turowski, Vanessa Birardi, Neil Solomons, Simrat Randhawa, and Paola Mina-Osorio are employees and stockholders of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals. Michael Eaddy is a former employee of Xcenda, LLC. Augustina Ogbonnaya and Eileen Farrelly are employees of Xcenda, LLC, which was contracted by Aurinia Pharmaceuticals to assist in the conduct of this study and the writing of this manuscript. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals provided funding for this study and the preparation of the manuscript. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals had a role in writing the report and decision to submit for publication.

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.

Cost analysis of COPD exacerbations and cardiovascular events in SUMMIT.

OBJECTIVES: The Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT) trial compared the efficacy of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) with placebo, FF monotherapy, and VI monotherapy on mortality in patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history/increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease. We conducted a post hoc economic analysis using data from SUMMIT to evaluate the economic benefits of treating these patients with COPD and CV risk. STUDY DESIGN: Patients (aged 40-80 years, with ≥10 pack-years' smoking history and a risk of CV events) were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive placebo, FF 100 mcg, VI 25 mcg, or FF/VI 100 mcg/25 mcg. METHODS: This was a post hoc economic analysis to assess the rates and associated costs of the composite end point (acute COPD exacerbations and revascularization/CV composite events) in the SUMMIT trial from a US healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: Overall, 16,485 patients were evaluated; of these, 5246 (31.8%) experienced an on-treatment composite end point event (28.5% experienced a COPD exacerbation, 4.2% experienced a CV event, and 2.0% underwent a revascularization procedure). The mean estimated 1-year on-treatment combined end point cost was highest for placebo and lowest for FF/VI ($4220 vs $3482, respectively). The reductions in cost versus placebo were significant for all active treatments (P <.0001). The likelihood of experiencing an on-treatment combined end point event was lower for patients treated with FF/VI versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: One-year combined end point event costs were significantly lower for all active treatments versus placebo. Clinicians and payers may be able decrease costs by effectively managing patients' COPD in those with CV risk.

Treatment Patterns and Costs of Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy: A Claims Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids, plasma exchange, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) have been standard-of-care treatments for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) for more than 2 decades. Despite guideline recommendations for best clinical practices, heterogeneity in patient presentation and the course of treatment for CIDP remains. There is limited literature regarding the real-world treatment patterns of and costs associated with CIDP. OBJECTIVE: To analyze and describe the real-world treatment patterns of and economic burden associated with CIDP. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the treatment patterns and CIDP-related healthcare costs over a 2-year follow-up period for patients with newly diagnosed CIDP who had commercial insurance, using claims data from the IMS LifeLink PharMetrics Plus Claims database between 2009 through 2014. Treatment-naïve patients with newly diagnosed CIDP were evaluated for 2 years postdiagnosis, which captured the treatments used and the resource utilization. The patients were defined as receiving active CIDP therapy (ie, IVIG, immunosuppressants, oral or intravenous steroids, or plasma exchange) or active surveillance. RESULTS: Of the 525 patients identified with newly diagnosed CIDP, 55.2% of patients were prescribed only steroid therapy, and 25.3% of patients were prescribed an IVIG therapy during the 2-year follow-up. The median time to the initial treatment was shortest for patients receiving plasma exchange alone (0.03 months) or in combination with a steroid (0.03 months), followed by IVIG plus another therapy (0.53 months), and then IVIG alone (0.71 months). Initiating therapy with steroids alone took the longest mean time (6.51 months) to start the treatment. The median length of time to receive therapy was longest for the steroid plus plasma exchange cohort (21.8 months), followed by the steroid plus immunosuppressant cohort (10.1 months), and the 2 IVIG cohorts (9.04 months for IVIG alone and 9.82 months for IVIG plus another therapy). The mean total CIDP-specific 2-year follow-up costs were highest for the cohort that received IVIG alone ($119,928) or with an additional therapy ($133,334) and lowest for patients who received active surveillance ($3723) or steroids alone ($3101). CONCLUSIONS: Steroid therapy was initiated later and resulted in a shorter duration of treatment than other treatment options for patients with CIDP, which may reflect diagnostic uncertainty, disease severity or remission, therapeutic challenge to determine diagnosis, or the side-effect profile of steroids. The use of steroids alone was the most common prescribed treatment for CIDP. Further research is needed to understand the rationale for treatment decisions in this patient population and their potential impact on patients and health plans.

The real-world economic impact of home-based video electroencephalography: the payer perspective.

Aims: Electroencephalography (EEG) is an established method to evaluate and manage epilepsy; video EEG (VEEG) has significantly improved its diagnostic value. This study compared healthcare costs and diagnostic-related outcomes associated with outpatient vs inpatient VEEG among patients with epilepsy in the US. Materials and methods: This study used Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases. Patients with a VEEG between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016 were identified. Index event was the first VEEG claim, which was used to determine inpatient and outpatient cohorts. Continuous health plan enrollment 6 months pre- and 12 months post-index VEEG was required. Primary outcomes were costs during the index event and 12 months post index. A generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a log link was used to estimate adjusted index and post-index costs. Results: Controlling for baseline differences, epilepsy-related cost of index VEEG was significantly lower for the outpatient ($4,098) vs the inpatient cohort ($13,821; p < 0.0001). The cost differences observed at index were maintained in the post-index period. The 12-month post-index epilepsy-related costs were lower in the outpatient cohort ($6,114 vs $12,733, p < 0.0001). Time from physician referral to index VEEG was significantly shorter in the outpatient cohort (30.6 vs 42.5 days). Patients in the inpatient cohort were also more likely to undergo an additional subsequent follow-up inpatient VEEG (p < 0.0001). Limitations: Administrative claims data have limitations, including lack of data on clinical presentation, disease severity, and comprehensive health plan information. Generalizability may be limited to a US insured population of patients who met study criteria. Conclusions: Index VEEG was less costly in an outpatient vs inpatient cohort, and costs were lower during the follow-up period of 12 months, suggesting that outpatient VEEG can be provided to appropriate patients as a less costly option. There were fewer follow-up tests in the outpatient cohort with similar pre- and post-index diagnoses.

Cost differential of immuno-oncology therapy delivered at community versus hospital clinics.

OBJECTIVES: The site of cancer care delivery has been shown to be associated with the total cost of care. The magnitude of this effect in patients receiving expensive immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies has not been evaluated. We evaluated cost differentials between community-based and hospital-based outpatient clinics among patients receiving I-O therapies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis utilizing Truven MarketScan Commercial and Supplemental Medicare claims databases. METHODS: Cost data for 3135 patients with non-small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or melanoma who received pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and/or ipilimumab between January 1, 2015, and February 14, 2017, were analyzed as cost per patient per month (PPPM). Patients treated within a community setting were matched 2:1 with those treated at a hospital clinic based on cancer type, specific I-O therapy, receipt of radiation therapy, evidence of metastatic disease, gender, age, and evidence of surgery in the preindex period. RESULTS: Mean (SD) total (medical plus pharmacy) PPPM cost was significantly lower for patients treated in a community- versus hospital-based clinic ($22,685 [$16,205] vs $26,343 [$22,832]; P <.001). Lower PPPM medical cost in the community versus hospital setting ($21,382 [$15,667] vs $24,831 [$22,102]; P <.001) was the major driver of this cost differential. Lower total cost was seen regardless of cancer type or I-O therapy administered. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with I-O therapies in community practice is associated with a lower total cost of care compared with that in hospital-based outpatient practices. With the expanding indications of these agents, future research is needed.

Economic Burden of Patients Treated for Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (HR-MDS) in Routine Clinical Care in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Significant clinical burden is associated with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS); however, the economic burden has not been fully examined. We examined cost of care and healthcare utilization (HCU) in HR-MDS patients engaged in routine care in the United States (US). METHODS: Adult US patients diagnosed with HR-MDS from 1/1/2008 to 10/31/2015 were identified from the Optum database. Patients were followed until death, progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), end of enrollment, or end of study (12/31/2015). Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)-related costs/HCU (including medical/pharmacy claims with a primary diagnosis of MDS, MDS-related treatment, or supportive care) and non-MDS-related costs/HCU were evaluated. Costs were calculated as per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs adjusted to 2015 US dollars. RESULTS: Of the 209 HR-MDS patients included, median follow-up was 9.9 months (interquartile range 4.6-17.9), and 69.4% had at least one inpatient admission, 56.9% had at least one emergency department visit, and nearly all patients had at least one outpatient visit. Average PPPM costs over follow-up were $17,361; year 1 versus year 2 costs were higher ($17,337 vs $12,976) following HR-MDS diagnosis. The majority of costs were for MDS-related medical services ($10,327 PPPM). MDS-related medical PPPM costs decreased from $10,557 (year 1) to $6530 (year 2). The main drivers of MDS-related medical costs and the decrease in year 2 were chemotherapy and supportive care costs. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of HR-MDS is considerable, particularly within the first year of diagnosis. Treatment/supportive care costs accounted for a significant portion of MDS-related costs. As HR-MDS treatment evolves, the economic impact and HCU need to be further investigated.

Cost Differences Associated With Oncology Care Delivered in a Community Setting Versus a Hospital Setting: A Matched-Claims Analysis of Patients With Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancers.

PURPOSE:: Access to high-quality cancer care remains a challenge for many patients. One such barrier is the increasing cost of treatment. With recent shifts in cancer care delivery from community-based to hospital-based clinics, we examined whether this shift could result in increased costs for patients with three common tumor types. METHODS:: Cost data for 6,675 patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancer were extracted from the IMS LifeLink database and analyzed as cost per patient per month (PPPM). Patients treated within a community setting were matched (2 to 1) with those treated at a hospital clinic on the basis of cancer type, chemotherapy regimen, receipt of radiation therapy, presence of metastatic disease, sex, prior surgery, and geographic region. Approximately 84% of patients were younger than 65 years of age. RESULTS:: Mean total PPPM cost was significantly lower for patients treated in a community- versus hospital-based clinic ($12,548 [standard deviation {SD}, $10,507] v $20,060 [SD, $16,555]; P < .001). The PPPM chemotherapy cost was also significantly lower in the community setting ($4,933 [SD, $4,983] v $8,443 [SD, $10,391]; P < .001). The lower cost observed in community practice was irrespective of chemotherapy regimen and tumor type. CONCLUSION:: We observed significantly increased costs of care for our patient population treated at hospital-based clinics versus those treated at community-based clinics, largely driven by the increased cost of chemotherapy and provider visits in hospital-based clinics. If the site of cancer care delivery continues to shift toward hospital-based clinics, the increased health care spending for payers and patients should be better elucidated and addressed.

Economic burden of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated in routine clinical care in the United States.

This retrospective claims database study examined healthcare utilization (HCU) and costs associated with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 237 elderly patients who received chemotherapy or a stem cell transplant (SCT) following AML diagnosis. Patients with secondary AML were excluded. Over the entire follow-up period, 92.0% of patients had ≥1 inpatient admission; 85.7% had ≥1 AML-related admission, and 42.6% had ≥1 non-AML-related admission. During inpatient admissions, 39.2% of patients had ≥1 intensive care unit (ICU) admission, with 20.7% having ≥1 AML-related ICU admission, and 27.8% having ≥1 non-AML-related ICU admission. Total mean per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs over the follow-up period were $25,243 (SD: $21,909), with costs from Year 1 ($27,756 [SD: $22,121]) more than double those in Year 2 ($12,953 [SD: $26,334]) following AML diagnosis. The majority of total costs were medical ($24,512 PPPM [SD: $21,704]), which included inpatient admissions ($6548 PPPM [SD: $10,777]), other outpatient visits ($5021 PPPM [SD: $7997]), supportive care ($3640 PPPM [SD: $5589], and chemotherapy administration ($2029 PPPM [SD: $2345]). Healthcare costs of treated elderly AML patients are substantial, particularly in the first year following diagnosis. Further research is needed to understand factors contributing to high costs in various settings of care for elderly AML patients.

Economic burden of patients with diffuse large B-cell and follicular lymphoma treated in the USA.

AIM: Evaluate healthcare costs and utilization of treated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. MATERIALS & METHODS: Adults with newly diagnosed DLBCL and FL between 1 January 2008 and 31 October 2015 were identified in the Optum™ claims database. Healthcare costs and utilization were assessed from diagnosis date until end of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1267 DLBCL- and 1595 FL-treated patients were identified. Mean per-patient, per-month cost during follow-up was US$11,890 for DLBCL and US$10,460 for FL. Healthcare costs and utilization decreased from year 1 to 2 following diagnosis, due to a decrease in chemotherapy services, inpatient admissions and other outpatient services. CONCLUSION: The economic burden of treated DLBCL and FL is considerable, especially in the first year following diagnosis.

Confirming the timing of phase-based costing in oncology studies: a case example in advanced melanoma.

AIMS: The utilization of healthcare services and costs among patients with cancer is often estimated by the phase of care: initial, interim, or terminal. Although their durations are often set arbitrarily, we sought to establish data-driven phases of care using joinpoint regression in an advanced melanoma population as a case example. METHODS: A retrospective claims database study was conducted to assess the costs of advanced melanoma from distant metastasis diagnosis to death during January 2010-September 2014. Joinpoint regression analysis was applied to identify the best-fitting points, where statistically significant changes in the trend of average monthly costs occurred. To identify the initial phase, average monthly costs were modeled from metastasis diagnosis to death; and were modeled backward from death to metastasis diagnosis for the terminal phase. Points of monthly cost trend inflection denoted ending and starting points. The months between represented the interim phase. RESULTS: A total of 1,671 patients with advanced melanoma who died met the eligibility criteria. Initial phase was identified as the 5-month period starting with diagnosis of metastasis, after which there was a sharp, significant decline in monthly cost trend (monthly percent change [MPC] = -13.0%; 95% CI = -16.9% to -8.8%). Terminal phase was defined as the 5-month period before death (MPC = -14.0%; 95% CI = -17.6% to -10.2%). LIMITATIONS: The claims-based algorithm may under-estimate patients due to misclassifications, and may over-estimate terminal phase costs because hospital and emergency visits were used as a death proxy. Also, recently approved therapies were not included, which may under-estimate advanced melanoma costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this advanced melanoma population, optimal duration of the initial and terminal phases of care was 5 months immediately after diagnosis of metastasis and before death, respectively. Joinpoint regression can be used to provide data-supported phase of cancer care durations, but should be combined with clinical judgement.

Rate of Adverse Events and Healthcare Costs Associated with the Topical Treatment of Rosacea.

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a condition more common in women than in men, and in people aged ≥30 years than in younger patients. Adverse events associated with the use of topical medications for rosacea may lead to a lack of treatment adherence. Previous studies have reported low treatment adherence rates among patients with rosacea. OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate of treatment discontinuation resulting from adverse events and the associated healthcare costs among patients with rosacea who are receiving a topical medication. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with rosacea based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 695.3 who were newly initiating topical treatment with metronidazole, azelaic acid, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, or benzoyl peroxide between January 1, 2009, and September 30, 2013. Patients were identified from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Medicare Supplemental database and had to be aged ≥30 years, have continuous coverage with medical and pharmacy benefits ≥12 months before treatment and ≥3 months after treatment inititation, and have no evidence of oral antibiotic use or ocular rosacea during the study period. The 3-month period immediately after the index date (ie, first topical rosacea treatment) was defined as the postindex period and was used to evaluate the outcome measures, which included the rate of adverse events, treatment patterns, and healthcare costs. RESULTS: The final cohort included 49,351 patients, with a mean age of 54 years, and 74.5% of the patients were female. Metronidazole was the most common (72.7%) treatment, followed by azelaic acid (21.7%), sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur (3.4%), and benzoyl peroxide (2.2%). A total of 6270 (12.7%) patients had a coded adverse event, of whom 199 (3.2%) continued treatment despite the adverse event, 466 (7.4%) switched to another treatment within 8.8 days, and 5605 (89.4%) discontinued therapy within 31.1 days. Patients with adverse events incurred, on average, a cost of $325 (medical, $143; pharmacy, $182) in rosacea-related costs; patients without adverse events incurred, on average, a cost of $172 (medical, $14; pharmacy, $157) in rosacea-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adverse events associated with current topical drugs for rosacea resulted in treatment switch or discontinuation. Drugs with a different mechanism of action or new formulations of existing drugs may provide additional treatment options for patients and may lead to improved adherence and better symptom control.

Impact of adherence to antidepressants on healthcare outcomes and costs among patients with type 2 diabetes and comorbid major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between adherence to antidepressants and an effect on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This retrospective study used MarketScan claims data from January 2012 to March 2014. Study entry was the first claim for an antidepressant and a diagnosis code for MDD and T2D in the prior 6 months. Adherence and persistence with antidepressant therapy in the first 180 days were defined as medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥ 80% and length of therapy (LOT), with no treatment gap of >15 days, respectively. T2D control (HbA1c <7%), oral diabetes medication adherence, and healthcare costs were measured in the 12 month post-index period. The impact of antidepressant adherence and persistence on outcomes was assessed using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Among the 1361 patients included, the mean age was 59 years and 55% were women. About one-third of the patients were adherent (35.9%, mean MPR = 40%), persistent (32.0%, average LOT = 100 days), and adherent/persistent (31.2%) on antidepressants. Being adherent, persistent, or adherent/persistent to antidepressants was associated with a two-fold improvement in adherence to oral diabetes medications. Of those with HbA1c data (n = 121), adherence or adherence/persistence to antidepressants was associated with patients being five times more likely to have T2D control (odds ratio [OR]: 4.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39, 17.59, p = .0134). Comparison between antidepressant-persistent and non-persistent patients was not significant. Mean difference in adjusted all-cause annual costs showed lower costs among antidepressant-adherent and adherent/persistent patients (adherent: -$350, 95% CI: -$462, -$247; adherent/persistent: -$1165; 95% CI: -$1280, -$1060). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with better antidepressant adherence and adherence/persistence demonstrated better HbA1c control, with lower all-cause total and medical costs. Adherence, persistence, or adherence/persistence to antidepressants was associated with improved adherence to oral diabetes medications.

A Clinical and Economic Comparison of Rasburicase and Allopurinol in the Treatment of Patients With Clinical or Laboratory Tumor Lysis Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare reductions in uric acid (UA), length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization costs in patients with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) treated with rasburicase or allopurinol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study of administrative data included hospitalized pediatric and adult patients who had clinical or laboratory TLS and received rasburicase or allopurinol. Each rasburicase-treated patient was propensity score-matched with 4 allopurinol-treated patients. Mean changes in UA within ≤ 2 days of treatment initiation were determined. Economic outcomes included mean number of days in the intensive care unit (ICU), total LOS, costs/hospitalization, and costs/percentage change in UA. RESULTS: Twenty-six rasburicase-treated patients were matched with 104 allopurinol-treated patients. Reduction in plasma UA was 5.3 mg/dL greater for patients treated with rasburicase than for patients treated with allopurinol (P < .0001). Length of ICU stay was 2.5 days less for patients treated with rasburicase than for patients treated with allopurinol (P < .0001), and total LOS was 5 days less for patients treated with rasburicase than for patients treated with allopurinol (P = .02). Total costs per patient were $20,038 lower for patients treated with rasburicase than for patients treated with allopurinol (P < .02). Cost per percentage UA reduction was also lower for patients treated with rasburicase versus patients treated with allopurinol ($3899 vs. $16,894; P < .001). CONCLUSION: In this analysis of TLS patients who received care in real-world settings, rasburicase versus allopurinol was significantly more effective in treating hyperuricemia and was associated with significantly shorter ICU and overall hospital stays and lower total inpatient costs.

Hospitalization Costs for Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery Treated With Intravenous Acetaminophen (IV-APAP) Plus Other IV Analgesics or IV Opioid Monotherapy for Postoperative Pain.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the impact on hospitalization costs of multimodal analgesia (MMA), including intravenous acetaminophen (IV-APAP), versus IV opioid monotherapy for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. METHODS: Utilizing the Truven Health MarketScan® Hospital Drug Database (HDD), patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), or surgical repair of hip fracture between 1/1/2011 and 8/31/2014 were separated into postoperative pain management groups: MMA with IV-APAP plus other IV analgesics (IV-APAP group) or an IV opioid monotherapy group. All patients could have received oral analgesics. Baseline characteristics and total hospitalization costs were compared. Additionally, an inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] with propensity scores analysis further assessed hospitalization cost differences. RESULTS: The IV-APAP group (n = 33,954) and IV opioid monotherapy group (n = 110,300) differed significantly (P < 0.0001) across baseline characteristics, though the differences may not have been clinically meaningful. Total hospitalization costs (mean ± standard deviation) were significantly lower for the IV-APAP group than the IV opioid monotherapy group (US$12,540 ± $9564 vs. $13,242 ± $35,825; P < 0.0001). Medical costs accounted for $701 of the $702 between-group difference. Pharmacy costs were similar between groups. Results of the IPTW-adjusted analysis further supported the statistically significant cost difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery who received MMA for postoperative pain management, including IV-APAP, had significantly lower total costs than patients who received IV opioid monotherapy. This difference was driven by medical costs; importantly, there was no difference in pharmacy costs. Generalizability of the results may be limited to patients admitted to hospitals similar to those included in HDD. Dosing could not be determined, so it was not possible to quantify utilization of IV-APAP or ascertain differences in opioid consumption between the 2 groups. This study did not account for healthcare utilization post-discharge.

Opioid Use Among Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients With Skeletal-related Events.

PURPOSE: The development of skeletal-related events (SREs) (pathologic fracture, need for surgery and/or radiation to bone, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia of malignancy) in metastatic prostate cancer (MPC) is associated with worsened pain and compromised quality of life. Opioids are frequently used throughout the course of SRE treatment. This study describes the treatment patterns and incremental use of opioids in MPC patients diagnosed with SREs. METHODS: PC patients with bone metastases newly diagnosed with an SRE between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2014, were identified using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases. Included patients were aged ≥40 years, had medical/pharmacy benefits for ≥12 months before (preindex) and ≥6 months after (postindex) diagnosis, and were without evidence of other primary cancers. Patients were categorized as nonusers of opioids (<10 days), short-term users (≥10 and <60 days), or long-term users (≥60 days) and further by SRE type. Opioid type, proportion of time on opioids, morphine-equivalent dose, adjuvant medications, and radiation use before and after SRE diagnosis were evaluated. FINDINGS: A total of 1071 eligible patients were identified (mean age, 71 years; 10.8% had chronic pain at baseline). The most common SRE types present were radiation (60.2%), radiation and bone surgery (15.0%), pathologic fracture (7.2%), and bone surgery (6.5%). Opioid use increased from 49.9% preindex to 53.3% postindex (P < 0.0001). The proportion of time on opioids doubled after SRE (pre, 0.3 vs post, 0.6; P < 0.0001). A greater percentage of patients used only opioids after an SRE (pre, 11.0%; post, 46.1% [P < 0.0001]), while a lesser percentage of patients used only radiation after an SRE (pre, 36.0%; post, 4.7% [P < 0.0001]). An increase was observed in patients using neither radiation nor opioids (pre, 14.5%; post, 42.0% [P < 0.0001]). An increase of ~50% was noted in long-term opioid users (from 22.1% to 32.1%). The use of monotherapy with a short-acting opioid decreased (pre, 35.1%; post, 32.5% [P < 0.0001]), while use of mixed opioids increased (pre, 13.7%; post, 19.1% [P < 0.0001]). Mean morphine-equivalent dose increased from pre- to post-SRE (9.1 vs 13.1 mg). Bisphosphonate and NSAID users decreased from before to after an SRE diagnosis (bisphosphonates, 40.2% vs 8.6%; NSAIDs, 26.7% vs 17.5% [both, P < 0.0001]). IMPLICATIONS: Long-term opioid use and dose were significantly increased after SRE development in MPC. The high percentage of patients not treated with an opioid or radiation potentially supports the need for additional treatment options for controlling pain if medically necessary and/or to prevent SREs.

Real-World Assessment of Interventional Treatment Timing and Outcomes for Varicose Veins: A Retrospective Claims Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of delaying interventional treatment on varicose vein disease progression, complications, and health care costs in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of adults diagnosed with varicose veins between January 2008 and June 2010. Patients were followed for 2 years after diagnosis and categorized into three cohorts based on the timing of interventional therapy: early (≤ 2 mo), intermediate (> 2 mo but ≤ 6 mo), and late (> 6 mo). Disease progression and all-cause health care costs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 44,206 patients were included, with 43% classified as receiving early interventional therapy, 33% as intermediate, and 24% as late. Early interventional treatment was associated with lower disease progression rates (29.2%) compared with intermediate (42.5%; P < .0001) and late treatment (52.2%; P < .0001). Also, early interventional treatment was associated with lower costs ($17,564) than intermediate ($17,923; P > .05) and late treatment ($18,399; P < .05). Each 30-day delay in treatment initiation was associated with a 7% higher risk of disease progression (P < .0001) and a 1% increase in costs (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that early initiation of interventional varicose vein treatment was significantly associated with a decreased risk of disease progression and costs.

Evaluating the Expected Costs and Budget Impact of Interventional Therapies for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous disease is a common disorder in the United States. The manifestations of chronic venous disease include varicosities and related sequelae that are frequent contributors to the morbidity and high costs associated with the disease. The interventional treatment options for chronic venous disease have expanded greatly in recent years and include various surgical and vein ablation techniques. Polidocanol injectable foam (also known as polidocanol endovenous microfoam 1%), a chemical ablation agent, is the most recent entrant to the market. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the expected patient-level total treatment costs and health plan-level budgetary impact of polidocanol injectable foam compared with the currently available interventional treatment options from a third-party US payer perspective. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based budget impact model was designed to compare the costs of polidocanol injectable foam with other interventional treatments (ie, laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, surgery, and multimodality treatment). The model included drug acquisition, medical procedure, administration, additional treatment, and disease progression costs. The treatment patterns and rates of additional treatment were incorporated from a recent retrospective claims analysis for established treatment modalities and from the clinical trials for polidocanol injectable foam. The model estimates the 1-year total estimated costs and the health plan budget impact assuming an 8-week treatment time frame. RESULTS: The total expected 8-week treatment costs were $2165 for polidocanol injectable foam, $1827 for endovenous laser ablation, $2106 for radiofrequency ablation, $2374 for surgery, and $2844 for multimodality treatment. The initial treatment costs were higher for surgery and multimodality treatment compared with polidocanol injectable foam and were lower for endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation treatments. Polidocanol injectable foam is projected to have a relatively small budget impact ($0.01 per member per month) at an initial 5% market share. CONCLUSION: Polidocanol injectable foam offers an alternative to other interventional options for the treatment of varicose veins and is projected to have a relatively small budget impact. From a health plan perspective, this drug is likely to have a relatively low budget impact as it becomes more widely used.

Evaluating treatments and corresponding costs of prostate cancer patients treated within an inpatient or hospital-based outpatient setting.

AIM: To describe treatments and cost of care for prostate cancer (PCa) in hospital-based outpatient and inpatient settings. METHODS: Hospital encounters associated with PCa (ICD-9 codes 185, 233.4) and PCa-related treatment in a hospital claims database were included. RESULTS: There were 211,440 encounters for PCa between January 2006 and December 2010 (88,151 inpatient and 123,289 outpatient). Average cost per inpatient stay was US$12,286 versus US$4364 per outpatient visit. Most common treatment during an inpatient stay and outpatient visit was surgery (57%) and radiation (76%), respectively. A total of 80% of outpatient visits and 69.9% inpatient stays were associated with a single treatment; remaining encounters were associated with ≥2 treatments. CONCLUSION: Costs are consistent with previous estimates; however, multimodal therapy is an emerging trend that may be related to greater costs in the future which may also be a challenge for hospital decision makers.

Migraine-related healthcare resource use and costs for subjects prescribed fixed-dose combination sumatriptan/naproxen sodium vs. single-entity oral triptans in a managed care population in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that the efficacy of a fixed-dose single-tablet combination containing sumatriptan and naproxen sodium (S/NS) was greater than either of its individual components. Simplifying drug regimens (e.g., via a fixed-dose combination) has been shown to improve "real-world" outcomes by reducing pill burden and treatment regimen complexity, improving adherence, and reducing healthcare resource use and associated costs; however, no studies assessing such outcomes have been conducted to date for the acute treatment of migraine. OBJECTIVE: To assess migraine-related healthcare resource use and associated costs for subjects prescribed S/NS vs. subjects prescribed single-entity oral triptans (SOTs) within a managed care population in the USA. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 (IMS LifeLink), subjects meeting the following criteria were selected: one or more pharmacy claim(s) for either S/NS or SOT (index date), aged 18-64 years; at least one migraine diagnosis, and continuous enrollment in the 6 months prior to and post the index date. The study population was subsequently stratified for two analyses: triptan-naïve (triptan naïve in the 6-month period prior to the index date) and triptan-switch (triptan user in the 6-month period prior to the index date and switching to another triptan). Subjects prescribed S/NS were propensity-score matched with subjects prescribed SOT (triptan-naïve analysis: 1:3; triptan-switch analysis: 1:1) to assess differences in healthcare resource use and associated costs (2009 US$) between the S/NS and SOT groups. RESULTS: Results from the triptan-naïve and triptan-switch analyses suggest that subjects prescribed S/NS are likely to have similar healthcare resource use patterns as those either newly initiated on an SOT or switching SOTs, as measured by migraine medication use, migraine-related healthcare resource use, and all-cause healthcare resource use. One exception was the observed increased use of opioids in the SOT group compared with the S/NS group (change in mean number of tablets pre-index vs. post-index, S/NS vs. SOT; triptan-naïve analysis: 8.6 vs.18.3, p = 0.045; triptan-switch analysis: -8.2 vs. 17.7; p = 0.120). Total costs from the triptan-naïve analysis indicated that the S/NS group had lower migraine-related (US$744 vs. US$820; p = 0.067) and all-cause healthcare costs (US$4,391 vs. US$4,870; p = 0.040) when compared with the SOT group, driven by savings in medical costs (migraine-related: US$252 vs. US$380; p = 0.001; all-cause: US$3,023 vs. US$3,599; p = 0.014). However, no significant differences were observed for total costs from the triptan-switch analysis (migraine-related healthcare costs, S/NS vs. SOT: US$1,159 vs. US$1,117; p = 0.929; all-cause healthcare costs: US$5,128 vs. US$4,788; p = 0.381). CONCLUSION: Study results suggest similar healthcare resource use patterns and associated costs when comparing S/NS and SOT across a triptan-naïve and triptan-experienced population. While the current study focuses on direct medical costs, future studies should extend beyond such a perspective to explore functional status, productivity, and health-related quality of life and satisfaction, attributes not captured in administrative claims data, but nonetheless important treatment goals.