Real-World Treatment Patterns of Antiviral Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus Among Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Linked USRDS-Medicare Database Study.

Limited data exist on cytomegalovirus (CMV) antiviral treatment patterns among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Using United States Renal Database System registry data and Medicare claims (1 January 2011-31 December 2017), we examined CMV antiviral use in 22,878 KTRs who received their first KT from 2011 to 2016. Three-quarters of KTRs started CMV prophylaxis (85.8% of high-, 82.4% of intermediate-, and 32.1% of low-risk KTRs). Median time to prophylaxis discontinuation was 98, 65, and 61 days for high-, intermediate-, and low-risk KTRs, respectively. Factors associated with receiving CMV prophylaxis were high-risk status, diabetes, receipt of a well-functioning kidney graft, greater time on dialysis before KT, panel reactive antibodies ≥80%, and use of antithymocyte globulin, alemtuzumab, and tacrolimus. KTRs were more likely to discontinue CMV prophylaxis if they developed leukopenia/neutropenia, had cardiovascular disease, or received their kidney from a deceased donor. These findings suggest that adherence to the recommended duration of CMV-prophylaxis for high and intermediate-risk patients is suboptimal, and CMV prophylaxis is overused in low-risk patients.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism among postmenopausal women prescribed ospemifene, selective estrogen receptor modulators for noncancer indications, or untreated vulvar and vaginal atrophy.

OBJECTIVE: Ospemifene is a nonsteroidal selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) for the treatment of moderate symptomatic vulvar and vaginal atrophy (VVA) due to menopause. A postauthorization safety study is currently examining the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among postmenopausal women receiving ospemifene or other SERM (raloxifene, bazedoxifene, or tamoxifen, for noncancer indications), or with untreated VVA. METHODS: This interim analysis used the US MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims database from 2013 to 2017 to identify incident VTE. The incidence rate and 95% confidence interval of VTE during the first continuous course of treatment (or continuous untreated time for the untreated cohort) were calculated for each cohort overall and by age group, with sensitivity analyses examining incidence in the short term (up to 90 days) and long term (all available follow-up, regardless of treatment changes). RESULTS: Analyses included 8,188 ospemifene users, 11,777 other SERM users, and 220,242 women with untreated VVA. The incidence per 1,000 person-years and 95% confidence interval of VTE were 3.7 (1.7-7.1) for ospemifene, 11.5 (8.9-14.6) for other SERM, and 11.3 (10.8-11.7) for untreated VVA. Stratification by age and altering the time frame for analysis produced results with similar patterns to the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This interim analysis of an ongoing study suggests a favorable safety profile for ospemifene with respect to VTE. Comparative analyses with covariate adjustment will be performed when data accrual is complete.

A comparison of the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran and warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in a large healthcare system.

Dabigatran is approved for stroke risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Data from diverse clinical practice settings will help establish whether the risk:benefit ratio seen in clinical trials is comparable with routine clinical care. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran and warfarin in clinical practice. We undertook a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort study (N=12,793 per group; mean age 74) comparing treatment with dabigatran or warfarin in the US Department of Defense claims database, October 2009 to July 2013. Treatment-naïve patients with first prescription claim for dabigatran (either FDA-approved dose) or warfarin between October 2010 and July 2012 (index) and a diagnosis of NVAF during the 12 months before index date were included. Primary outcomes were stroke and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, major gastrointestinal (GI), urogenital or other bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI) and death. Time-to-event was investigated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Outcomes comparisons were made utilising Cox-proportional hazards models of PSM groups. Dabigatran users experienced fewer strokes (adjusted hazard ratio [95 % confidence intervals] 0.73 [0.55-0.97]), major intracranial (0.49 [0.30-0.79]), urogenital (0.36 [0.18-0.74]) and other (0.38 [0.22-0.66]) bleeding, MI (0.65 [0.45-0.95]) and deaths (0.64 [0.55-0.74]) than the warfarin group. Major bleeding (0.87 [0.74-1.03]) and major GI bleeding (1.13 [0.94-1.37]) was similar between groups and major lower GI bleeding events were more frequent (1.30 [1.04-1.62]) with dabigatran. In conclusion, compared with warfarin, dabigatran treatment was associated with a lower risk of stroke and most outcomes measured, but increased incidence of major lower GI bleeding.

Hospital costs for treatment of acute heart failure: economic analysis of the REVIVE II study.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF) is the leading cause of hospital admission among older Americans. The Randomized EValuation of Intravenous Levosimendan Efficacy (REVIVE II) trial compared patients randomly assigned to a single infusion of levosimendan (levo) or placebo (SOC), each in addition to local standard treatments for AHF. We report an economic analysis of REVIVE II from the hospital perspective. METHODS: REVIVE II enrolled patients (N = 600) hospitalized for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) who remained dyspneic at rest despite treatment with intravenous diuretics. Case report forms documented index hospital treatment (drug administration, procedures, days of treatment by care unit), as well as subsequent hospital and emergency department admissions during follow-up ending 90 days from date of randomization. These data were used to impute cost of admission based on an econometric cost function derived from >100,000 ADHF hospital billing records selected per REVIVE II inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Index admission mean length of stay (LOS) was shorter for the levo group compared with standard of care (SOC) (7.03 vs 8.96 days, P = 0.008) although intensive care unit (ICU)/cardiac care unit (CCU) days were similar (levo 2.88, SOC 3.22, P = 0.63). Excluding cost for levo, predicted mean (median) cost for the index admission was levo US $13,590 (9,458), SOC $19,021 (10,692) with a difference of $5,431 (1,234) favoring levo (P = 0.04). During follow-up through end of study day 90, no significant differences were observed in numbers of hospital admissions (P = 0.67), inpatient days (P = 0.81) or emergency department visits (P = 0.41). Cost-effectiveness was performed with a REVIVE-II sub-set conforming to current labeling, which excluded patients with low baseline blood pressure. Assuming an average price for levo in countries where currently approved, there was better than 50% likelihood that levo was both cost-saving and improved survival. Likelihood that levo would be cost-effective for willingness-to-pay below $50,000 per year of life gained was about 65%. CONCLUSIONS: In the REVIVE II trial, patients treated with levo had shorter LOS and lower cost for the initial hospital admission relative to patients treated with SOC. Based on sub-group analysis of patients administered per the current label, levo appears cost-effective relative to SOC.

Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are serious operative complications that occur in approximately 2% of surgical procedures and account for some 20% of health care-associated infections. METHODS: SSI was identified based on the presence of ICD-9-CM diagnosis code 998.59 in hospital discharge records for 7 categories of surgical procedures: neurological; cardiovascular; colorectal; skin, subcutaneous tissue, and breast; gastrointestinal; orthopedic; and obstetric and gynecologic. Source of data was the 2005 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (HCUP NIS). Primary study outcomes were rate of SSI by surgical category and impact of SSI on length of stay and cost. Results were projected to the national level. RESULTS: Among 723,490 surgical hospitalizations in the sample, 6891 cases of SSI were identified (1%). On average, SSI extended length of stay by 9.7 days while increasing cost by $20,842 per admission. From the national perspective, these cases of SSI were associated with an additional 406,730 hospital-days and hospital costs exceeding $900 million. An additional 91,613 readmissions for treatment of SSI accounted for a further 521,933 days of care at a cost of nearly $700 million. CONCLUSION: SSI is associated with a significant economic burden in terms of extended length of stay and increased costs of treatment. Our analysis documented nearly 1 million additional inpatient-days and $1.6 billion in excess costs.

Systemic sclerosis prevalence and comorbidities in the US, 2001-2002.

OBJECTIVE: Large, population-based assessments of systemic sclerosis (SSc) prevalence and comorbidity in the United States (US) are rare. We explored autoimmune disease and other comorbidity patterns among SSc patients in the US from 2001 to 2002 and compared these with controls. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two US datasets with patient-level medical and drug claims were used to assess SSc prevalence and comorbidity: IMS Health Integrated Administrative Claims Database (IMS Health) and the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (MarketScan). SSc patients and comorbidities were identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 9th revision diagnostic codes appearing on medical claims. Patients without SSc diagnostic codes (controls) were selected and matched 4:1 to SSc patients based on sex, age, Census Bureau region, and previous insurance coverage. The prevalence relative risk (RR) statistic compared comorbidity occurrence between SSc patients and controls, with 95% confidence intervals estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Several sensitivity analyses tested methods used for identifying SSc cases and the prevalence of comorbidities. RESULTS: In both databases, SSc prevalence was 0.05% using the standard population model, 0.03% under sensitivity analysis. Among SSc patients the risks for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and multiple sclerosis (MS) were notably higher across datasets than for those without SSc: RR 3.2-6.6 for MS, RR 2.1-2.2 for IBD, in MarketScan and IMS Health, respectively (p < 0.05 for all). The chronic disease burden of SSc patients was much higher than that of controls, as confirmed by two chronicity measures (Chronic Disease Score, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index). The risks for cardiovascular, renal, liver and several neuropsychiatric diseases were higher for SSc patients across both datasets. Sensitivity analyses supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a population-based estimate of US prevalence of SSc and document the higher risk for certain other autoimmune diseases among SSc patients when compared to controls. Patients with SSc also had a higher chronic disease burden than those without SSc. These findings are limited by the unknown validity of ICD-9 codes for SSc case identification, unbalanced regional representation, and a likely 'healthy worker' effect in these databases.

The costs of treating acute heart failure: an economic analysis of the SURVIVE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost per life year gained with levosimendan relative to dobutamine in treatment of acute heart failure based on the Survival of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial. METHODS: SURVIVE enrolled 1,327 patients (levosimendan 664, dobutamine 663) from nine nations with 180-day survival from date of randomisation as the primary endpoint. Hospital resource utilisation was determined via clinical case reports. Unit costs were derived from hospital payment schedules for France, Germany and the UK, and represent a third-party payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for a subset of the SURVIVE patient population selected in accordance with current levosimendan labeling. RESULTS: Mortality in the levosimendan group was 26 versus 28% for dobutamine (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.13, p=0.40). Initial hospitalisation length of stay was identical (levosimendan 14.4, dobutamine 14.5, p=0.98). Slightly lower rates of readmission were observed for levosimendan relative to dobutamine at 31 (p=0.13) and 180 days (p=0.23). Mean costs excluding study drug were equivalent for the index admission (levosimendan euro5,060, dobutamine euro4,952; p=0.91) and complete episode (levosimendan euro5,396, dobutamine euro5,275; p=0.93). CONCLUSION: At an acquisition cost of euro600 per vial, there is at least 50% likelihood that levosimendan is cost effective relative to dobutamine if willingness to pay is equal to or greater than euro15,000 per life year gained.

Estimating costs of care for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the resource use patterns and costs of care for patients with incident metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on analyses of retrospective claims data from selected health plans in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A case-control analysis was performed using claims from years 1998-2004. Incident mCRC cases were identified based on evidence of a colorectal cancer diagnosis and a metastatic disease diagnosis. Incident mCRC cases could have no other evidence of cancer in the 1-year period before the date of their first mCRC diagnosis. Cases were matched to non-mCRC controls based on age, sex, geographic region, and duration of plan enrollment. Costs were evaluated by phase of disease: diagnosis, treatment, or death phases. Ordinary least squares regressions were performed to evaluate impact of covariates in each phase. RESULTS: Total costs in the follow-up period averaged $97,031 more for mCRC cases than for controls. The main cost drivers for mCRC were hospitalizations ($37,369) and specialist visits ($34,582), which included chemotherapy administration. Approximately 40% of the 672 patients with mCRC who qualified for the phase analysis were identified with a fatal event during follow-up. Monthly costs were similar in the diagnostic phase ($12,205) and death phase ($12,328), but were significantly lower in the treatment phase ($4722). Both mean/median monthly costs increased over time during the study period, regardless of disease phase. CONCLUSION: The economic burden of mCRC is substantial for patients with commercial health plans in the United States, and costs of care have increased substantially in recent years.