Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with post-stroke spasticity before and after spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxina.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data regarding the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA on healthcare resource utilization and costs for post-stroke spasticity are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in 12-month healthcare resource utilization and costs before and after post-stroke spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxinA. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis of IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases included adults with ≥ 1 onabotulinumtoxinA claim for post-stroke spasticity (1 January 2010 to 30 June 2018) and continuous enrolment for ≥ 12 months pre- and post-index (first onabotulinumtoxinA claim date). All-cause and spasticity-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared 12 months pre- and post-index (McNemar's χ2 test or paired t-test). A subgroup analysis assessed effect of stroke-to-index interval on costs. RESULTS: Among 735 patients, mean (standard deviation) stroke-date-to-index-date interval was 284.5 (198.8) days. Decreases were observed post-index for mean all-cause outpatient (62.9 vs 60.5; p ≤ 0.05) and emergency department visits (1.1 vs 0.8; p ≤ 0.0001), and hospital admissions (1.5 vs 0.4; p ≤ 0.0001). Increase in prescription fills (43.0 vs 53.7) was seen post-index. Post-index decreases in all-cause (-66%) and spasticity-related (-51%) costs were driven by reduced inpatient care costs. Findings were consistent regardless of stroke-date-to-index-date interval. CONCLUSION: Significant reductions in healthcare resource utilization and costs were observed after 1 year of post-stroke spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxinA. Long-term studies are needed to establish causality.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs for patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common complications following cardiac surgery. POAF is associated with increased hospitalization costs, but its long-term economic burden is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess 30-day and 1-year incremental healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with POAF in the United States (US). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims data from the IBM Watson MarketScan database. A cohort of US adults aged 55--90 years who underwent open-heart surgery between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 was used to compare patients who experienced POAF versus patients who did not (controls). The outcomes of interest were incremental HRU and costs, which were assessed during the index hospitalization and 30-day and 1-year postdischarge time periods. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 8,020 patients met the study inclusion criteria with 5,765 patients in the control cohort (mean age, 63.4 years) and 2,255 patients in the POAF cohort (mean age, 65.8 years). After adjustment, patients with POAF had an index hospitalization that was 1.9 days longer (99% CI, 1.3-2.4 days; p < 0.001) and cost $13,919 more (99% CI, $2,828-$25,011; p < 0.001) than for patients without POAF. POAF patients also had significantly higher HRU at 30 days and 1-year postdischarge with incremental costs of $4,649 (99% CI, $1,479-$7,819; p < 0.001) and $10,671 (99% CI, $2,407-$18,935; p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: POAF following open-heart surgery poses a significant economic burden up to 1 year postdischarge.

Real-world persistence and costs among patients with chronic migraine treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a common neurologic disorder that imposes substantial burden on payers, patients, and society. Low rates of persistence to oral migraine preventive medications have been previously documented; however, less is known about persistence and costs associated with innovative nonoral migraine preventive medications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world persistence and costs among adults with CM treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study analyzing the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases. The study sample included adults with CM initiating treatment with either onabotA or a CGRP mAb on or after January 1, 2018. Persistence and costs over 12 months after treatment initiation were evaluated using chi-square and Student's t-tests. Persistence to onabotA was compared with CGRP mAbs as a weighted average of the class and by individual CGRP mAbs. Mean pharmacy (acute and preventive), medical (inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient), and total costs are reported. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to generate adjusted estimates of persistence and costs after controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, region, insurance type, number of baseline comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and number of previously used oral migraine preventive medications). RESULTS: Of 66,303 individuals with onabotA or CGRP mAb claims, 2,697 with CM met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the total population, individuals were primarily female (85.5%), lived in the South (48.5%), and had a mean (SD) age of 44 (12) years, which was consistent across the onabotA and CGRP mAb cohorts. Common comorbid conditions included anxiety (23.9%), depression (18.2%), hypertension (16.5%), and sleep disorders (16.9%). After adjusting for potential confounding variables, persistence to onabotA during the 12-month follow-up period was 40.7% vs 27.8% for CGRP mAbs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.683; 95% CI = 0.604-0.768; P < 0.0001). Persistence to erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab was 25.5% (OR = 0.627; 95% CI = 0.541-0.722; P < 0.0001), 30.3% (OR = 0.746; 95% CI = 0.598-0.912; P = 0.0033), and 33.7% (OR = 0.828; 95% CI = 0.667-1.006; P = 0.058). All-cause ($18,292 vs $18,275; P = 0.9739) and migraine-related ($8,990 vs $9,341; P = 0.1374) costs were comparable between the onabotA and CGRP mAb groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CM receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs, individuals initiating onabotA treatment had higher persistence compared with those receiving CGRP mAbs. Total all-cause and migraine-related costs over 12 months were comparable between those receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie), they contributed to the design and interpretation of data and the writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Dennis Stancavish, MS, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, and was funded by AbbVie. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The authors received no honorarium/fee or other form of financial support related to the development of this article. Dr Schwedt serves on the Board of Directors for the American Headache Society and the American Migraine Foundation. Within the prior 12 months he has received research support from Amgen, Henry Jackson Foundation, Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, SPARK Neuro, and US Department of Defense. Within the past 12 months, he has received personal compensation for serving as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Allergan, Axsome, BioDelivery Science, Biohaven, Collegium, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Linpharma, Lundbeck, and Satsuma. He holds stock options in Aural Analytics and Nocira. He has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr Lee and Ms Shah are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Gillard was an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Knievel has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Biohaven; conducted research for AbbVie, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; and is on speaker programs for AbbVie and Amgen. Dr McVige has served as a speaker and/or received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie Inc.), Alder, Amgen/Novartis, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Teva. Ms Wang and Ms Wu are employees of Genesis Research, which provides consulting services to AbbVie. Dr Blumenfeld, within the past 12 months, has served on advisory boards for Allergan, AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Amgen, Axsome, BDSI, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, Lilly, Novartis, Revance, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano; as a speaker for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, BDSI, Biohaven, Lundbeck, Lilly, and Teva; as a consultant for Allergan, AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva, and Theranica; and as a contributing author for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Novartis, Lilly, and Teva. He has received grant support from AbbVie and Amgen. AbbVie is committed to responsible data sharing regarding the clinical trials we sponsor. This includes access to anonymized, individual, and trial-level data (analysis data sets), as well as other information (eg, protocols, clinical study reports, or analysis plans), as long as the trials are not part of an ongoing or planned regulatory submission. This includes requests for clinical trial data for unlicensed products and indications. These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent scientific research, and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal and Statistical Analysis Plan and execution of a Data Sharing Agreement. Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the United States and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process, or to submit a request, visit the following link: https://www.abbvieclinicaltrials.com/hcp/data-sharing/.

Place of care and costs associated with acute episodes and remission in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia imposes significant economic burden on patients, families, caregivers, and society. To our knowledge, place of care and associated costs of acute schizophrenia episodes have not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To describe the care settings and costs associated with likely acute episodes and untreated remission periods among patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Adults with schizophrenia were identified using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (2009-2018); claims for capitated benefits plans were excluded. Acute episode index date was defined as at least 1 inpatient schizophrenia claim or outpatient schizophrenia claim (frequency of claim dependent on visit type, such as hospitalization, emergency department, private practice, clinic, urgent care, or laboratory). Mental health-related medical costs (health plan+patient) associated with acute episodes were collected over a 2-month follow-up period and stratified by setting (inpatient vs outpatient); acute episode data were reported in subgroups of patients without or with prior clozapine use, as an indication of disease severity. Remission index date was defined as at least 1 outpatient claim with a schizophrenia diagnosis with no acute episode and no oral or injectable antipsychotic therapy. Remission costs were assessed over a 3-month period. All data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 14,824 patients with schizophrenia met criteria for an acute episode (12,896 [87.0%] without prior clozapine use; 1,427 [9.6%] with prior clozapine use). Most acute episodes were treated in an outpatient setting (all patients, 76.3%; without prior clozapine use, 74.5%; with prior clozapine use, 87.1%). When treated inpatient, mean (SD) episode medical costs were $17,045 ($28,101) for all patients, $16,060 ($22,786) for those without prior clozapine use, and $22,827 ($55,860) for those with prior clozapine use. When treated outpatient, mean (SD) medical costs for acute episodes were $2,478 ($6,961) for all patients, $2,609 ($7,068) for those without prior clozapine use, and $1,770 ($6,560) for those with prior clozapine use. For all patients with acute episodes, regardless of clozapine use, patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs were approximately 30% of total medical costs. For an untreated period of remission, 6,950 patients with schizophrenia met criteria. Total medical costs were $2,399 for these patients over a 3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of acute schizophrenia episodes were treated in the outpatient setting. For episodes that required inpatient care, inpatient episodes were approximately 7 times more costly than episodes treated in outpatient-only settings. For acute episodes and remission periods, health plans covered most costs; however, there were additional patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs. DISCLOSURES: All authors met the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Neither honoraria nor payments were made for authorship. Dr McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Mr Doan, Dr Amari, and Mr Mercer are employees of Genesis Research, which was funded to perform the study. Ms Higa, Dr Gillard, and Dr Harrington were employees of AbbVie at the time of the study and may hold stock. This study was sponsored by AbbVie.

Total healthcare cost savings through improved bipolar I disorder identification using the Rapid Mood Screener in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Misdiagnosis of bipolar I disorder (BP-I) as major depressive disorder (MDD) leads to increased healthcare resource utilization and costs. The cost-effectiveness of the Rapid Mood Screener (RMS), a tool to identify BP-I in patients with depressive symptoms, was assessed in patients diagnosed with MDD presenting with depressive episodes. METHODS: A decision-tree model of a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients in a US health plan was used to estimate the number of correct diagnoses and overall total, direct healthcare costs over a 3-year timeframe for RMS-screened versus unscreened patients. Model inputs included the prevalence of BP-I in patients diagnosed with MDD, RMS sensitivity/specificity, and the cost of misdiagnosing BP-I as MDD. RESULTS: Screening with the RMS resulted in 171, 159, and 143 additional correct BP-I or MDD diagnoses at Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Total healthcare plan cost savings were $1279 per patient in Year 1. Cumulative cost savings per patient for RMS screening versus no RMS screening were $2307 over 2 years and $3011 over 3 years. Scenario analyses showed that the RMS would remain cost-saving assuming a lower prevalence of BP-I (20% or 10%) versus the base case (24.3%). CONCLUSION: The RMS is a cost-effective tool to identify BP-I in patients who would otherwise be misdiagnosed with MDD. Screening with the RMS resulted in cost-savings over 3 years, with model results remaining robust even with lower prevalence of BP-I and reduced RMS sensitivity assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments from a US commercial and payer perspective.

Aim: The cost-effectiveness of treatment options (anticholinergics, ß3-adrenoceptor agonists, onabotulinumtoxinA, sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial stimulation [the latter two including new rechargeable neurostimulators]) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB) were compared with best supportive care (BSC) using a previously published Markov model. Materials & methods: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a 15-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were performed using 2- and 5-year horizons. Discontinuation rates, resource utilization, and costs were derived from published sources. Results: Using Medicare and commercial costs over a 15-year time period, onabotulinumtoxinA 100U had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) gained of $39,591/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $42,255/QALY, respectively, versus BSC, which were the lowest ICERs of all assessed treatments. The sensitivity analyses at 2- and 5-year horizons also showed onabotulinumtoxinA to be the most cost-effective of all assessed treatments versus BSC. Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA 100U is currently the most cost-effective treatment for OAB.

Annual costs among patients with major depressive disorder and the impact of key clinical events.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) is substantial and increasing; however, the impact of key clinical events (eg, hospitalization, suicide attempt/ideation, and treatment changes) on health care resource use and costs are less established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the health care utilization and costs among patients with MDD, particularly for those with key clinical events. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, administrative health care claims from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database were used to identify adults with a new diagnosis of MDD (January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017). Patients with 12 months or more of continuous health care coverage before and after the initial medical claim with an MDD diagnosis (index date) and 1 or more pharmacy claims for an antidepressant within 60 days of any qualifying medical claim were included. The effect of post-index date key clinical events (eg, treatment changes, moderate to severe MDD, MDD-related emergency department [ED] visits, MDD-related hospitalizations, suicide attempt/ideation, severe mental health disorder, use of brain stimulation therapies) on all-cause total costs was assessed. Actual allcause costs were summarized descriptively and reported per patient per year (PPPY). Multivariable analyses compared differences in all-cause costs during follow-up, depending on whether patients experienced a key clinical event. RESULTS: A total of 455,082 patients met eligibility criteria. The average age was 41 years and 64% of patients were female. Mean (SD) all-cause PPPY costs during the follow-up period were $10,074 ($25,694). The most common key clinical events were treatment changes, moderate to severe MDD diagnosis, and MDD-related ED visits. The majority of patients (90.1%) experienced at least 1 treatment change, which was most commonly treatment discontinuation. Generally, mean costs for up to 90 days following an event were higher than those preceding the event. In multivariable analyses, patients with any key clinical events had 51% higher PPPY allcause health care costs compared with those who did not have any key clinical events. Compared with patients without key clinical events, follow-up costs were more than 2 times higher among patients with severe mental health disorder, MDD-related hospitalization, and suicide attempt/ideation. The most impactful key clinical event was treatment with electroconvulsive therapy, vagal nerve stimulation, or transcranial magnetic stimulation, in which patients incurred 4.3 times higher follow-up costs than those who did not receive one of these treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Key clinical events exacerbate health care resource use and costs among patients with MDD. Effective therapeutic regimens initiated optimally in the course of treatment may mitigate costly clinical events associated with MDD. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan plc (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie). The sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. All authors met the ICMJE authorship criteria. Neither honoraria nor payments were made for authorship. Dr Cutler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Akili Interactive, Alfasigma, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Avanir, BioXcel Therapeutics, BlackThorn Therapeutics, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Janssen, Karuna Therapeutics, Lundbeck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Noven, Otsuka, Sage Therapeutics, Sunovion, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Teva and Tris Pharma; has received speaker/promotional honoraria from AbbVie, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alfasigma, Alkermes, Allergan, Avanir, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Janssen, Lundbeck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Noven, Otsuka, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, and Tris Pharma; and has received research grants from Aevi Genomics, Akili Interactive, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Ironshore, KemPharm, Lilly, Lundbeck, Neos Therapeutics, Novartis, Otsuka, Purdue Canada, Sunovion, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and Tris Pharma. Drs Keyloun and Gillard are AbbVie employees and may hold stock. Dr Higa was an employee of AbbVie at the time of the study and may hold stock. Ms Park is an employee of Merative, formerly IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie) to conduct this analysis. Dr Bonafede was an employee of IBM Watson Health, now Merative, which received funding from Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie) to conduct this analysis. Dr Jain has served as a consultant to Addrenex, Allergan (now AbbVie), Avanir, Janssen, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocrine Biosciences, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva; has been a paid speaker for Addrenex, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Rhodes, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Takeda, and Tris Pharmaceuticals; has received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie), AstraZeneca, Lilly, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Shire, and Takeda; and has served on the advisory boards for Addrenex, Alkermes, Avanir, Forum, Janssen, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocrine Biosciences, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

Place of care and costs associated with acute episodes and remission in bipolar I disorder.

AIMS: To our knowledge, literature describing the place of care and associated costs during acute bipolar I disorder (BP-I) episodes is limited. We conducted a claims-based retrospective study to address this gap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with BP-I were identified via IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. The acute episode index date was defined by ≥1 inpatient BP-I claim(s) or ≥1 outpatient or ≥3 outpatient BP-I claims (depending on visit type) in a 2-week (manic/mixed) or 4-week (depressive) period. Likely acute episodes were defined as 3- and 6-week periods for manic/mixed and depressive episodes, respectively; total mental health-related medical costs (health plan + patient) were collected during these intervals and stratified by setting (inpatient versus outpatient). Initial and subsequent episodes were captured; data were reported in subgroups without and with clozapine use, a proxy for disease severity. The remission index date was the earliest outpatient claim with a bipolar remission diagnosis with no acute episode or treatment. Remission costs were collected over a 3-month period. All results were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 41,516 patients with 130,221 acute manic/mixed episodes and 47,763 patients with 149,207 acute depressive episodes met the study criteria. Over 84% of acute episodes were treated in outpatient settings. Mental health-related medical costs for manic/mixed episodes were $15,444 for inpatient and $1,577 for outpatient settings; inpatient and outpatient costs for depressive episodes were $17,376 and $2,154, respectively. Health plans covered approximately 78% of medical costs for both episode types with and without prior clozapine use. A total of 8,143 patients met remission criteria; the total 3-month outpatient costs were $1,225. CONCLUSIONS: Most BP-I acute manic/mixed or depressive episodes were treated in the outpatient setting. Episodes with inpatient care were 8-10 times more costly than outpatient-only episodes. Health plans covered most medical costs, but additional patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs remained.

The real-world health resource use and costs of misdiagnosing bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosis of bipolar I disorder (BP-I) as major depressive disorder (MDD) is common. This study evaluated healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among BP-I patients who were initially misdiagnosed with MDD (misdiagnosed BP-I cohort) versus patients diagnosed with BP-I without a known prior MDD diagnosis (BP-I only cohort). METHODS: Data from IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases were used. The index date was the first MDD diagnosis for misdiagnosed patients or first BP-I diagnosis for BP-I only patients. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. All-cause and mental health (MH)-related HRU and costs were compared between weighted cohorts using rate ratios (RRs) and mean cost differences, respectively. Outcomes were reported per patient-year (PPY). Confidence intervals and P-values were calculated using non-parametric bootstrap procedures. RESULTS: Overall, 14,729 misdiagnosed BP-I and 16,072 BP-I only patients met criteria. Baseline characteristics were balanced across weighted cohorts. Misdiagnosed BP-I patients had significantly higher rates of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and outpatient visits than BP-I only patients during follow-up (all-cause RRs: 1.94, 1.33, and 1.38, respectively, all P < .001; MH-related RRs: 2.19, 1.77, and 1.77, respectively, all P < .001). Similarly, misdiagnosed BP-I patients incurred significantly higher total healthcare costs PPY over follow-up (all-cause: $21,202 vs $14,661, cost difference = $6541; MH-related: $12,901 vs $6749, cost difference = $6152; both P < .001). Cost differences were even higher during the first year (all-cause = $7146; MH-related = $6619; both P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Claims database (e.g., coding inaccuracies); generalizability to uninsured patients. CONCLUSIONS: The prompt and correct diagnosis of BP-I may significantly reduce HRU and costs.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants in major depressive disorder (MDD) are common and associated with poor clinical and functional outcomes and increased health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. However, contemporary real-world evidence on the economic effect of antidepressant nonadherence and nonpersistence is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants on HCRU and costs in adult patients with MDD enrolled in U.S. commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance plans. METHODS: This was a retrospective new-user cohort study using administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. We identified adult patients with MDD aged ≥ 18 years who initiated antidepressant therapy for a new MDD episode between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Twelve-month total all-cause HCRU and costs (2019 U.S. dollars) were characterized for patients who were adherent/nonadherent and persistent/nonpersistent to antidepressants at 6 months. Adherence was defined as having proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 80%, and persistence was defined as having continuous antidepressant therapy without a ≥ 30-day gap. Multivariable negative binomial regression and 2-part models adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for HCRU and incremental costs of nonadherence and nonpersistence, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 224,645 patients with MDD (commercial: n = 209,422; Medicare supplemental: n = 15,223) met all study inclusion criteria. Approximately half of patients were nonadherent (commercial: 48%; Medicare supplemental: 50%) or nonpersistent (commercial: 49%; Medicare supplemental: 52%) to antidepressants at 6 months. After controlling for baseline characteristics, nonadherent patients experienced significantly more inpatient hospitalizations (commercial, adjusted IRR [95% CI]: 1.34 [1.29 to 1.39]; Medicare supplemental: 1.19 [1.12 to 1.28]) and emergency room (ER) visits (commercial, adjusted IRR [95% CI]: 1.43 [1.40 to 1.45]; Medicare supplemental: 1.28 [1.21 to 1.36]) compared with adherent patients. Similar results were observed in nonpersistent patients. Adjusted mean differences revealed that nonadherent and nonpersistent patients accumulated significantly higher medical costs (commercial: $568 [95% CI: $354 to $764] and $491 [$284 to $703]; Medicare supplemental: $1,621 [$314 to $2,774] and $1,764 [$451 to $2,925]), inpatient costs (commercial: $650 [$490 to $801] and $564 [$417 to $716]; Medicare supplemental: $1,546 [$705 to $2,308] and $1,567 [$778 to $2,331]), and ER costs (commercial: $130 [$115 to $143] and $129 [$115 to $142]; Medicare supplemental: $82 [$23 to $150] and $80 [$18 to $150]), and incurred significantly lower pharmacy costs (commercial: -$561 [-$601 to -$521] and -$576 [-$616 to -$540]; Medicare supplemental: -$510 [-$747 to -$227] and -$596 [-$830 to -$325]) compared with adherent and persistent patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found more hospitalizations and ER use and higher total medical costs among patients who were nonadherent and nonpersistent to antidepressants at 6 months. Strategies that promote better adherence and persistence may lower HCRU and medical costs in patients with MDD. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan, which was involved in the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and decision to present these results. Ta was supported by a training grant provided to the University of Washington by Allergan at the time this study was conducted. Tung and Gillard are employees of Allergan. Oliveri is an employee of Genesis Research. Sullivan and Devine have no financial disclosures. This study was presented as a poster at AMCP 2020 (Virtual Meeting), April 21-24, 2020.

Direct Costs Incurred Among Women Undergoing Surgical Procedures to Treat Uterine Fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids (UF) affect up to 70%-80% of women by 50 years of age and represent a substantial economic burden on patients and society. Despite the high costs associated with UF, recent studies on the costs of UF-related surgical treatments remain limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe the health care resource utilization (HCRU) and all-cause costs among women diagnosed with UF who underwent UF-related surgery. METHODS: Data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and Medicaid Multi-State database were independently, retrospectively analyzed from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2015. Women aged 18-64 years with ≥ 1 UF claim from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, a claim for a UF-related surgery (hysterectomy, myomectomy, uterine artery embolization [UAE], or ablation) from January 1, 2010, to November 30, 2015, and continuous enrollment for ≥ 1 year presurgery and ≥ 30 days postsurgery qualified for study inclusion. A 1-year period before the date of the first UF-related surgical claim after the first UF diagnosis was used to report baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Surgery characteristics were reported. All-cause HCRU and costs (adjusted to 2017 U.S. dollars) were described by the 14 days pre-, peri-, and 30 days postoperative periods, and independently by the inpatient or outpatient setting. RESULTS: Overall, 113,091 patients were included in this study: commercial database, n = 103,814; Medicaid database, n = 9,277. Median time from the initial UF diagnosis to first UF-related surgical procedure was 33 days for the commercial population and 47 days for the Medicaid population. Hysterectomy was the most common UF-related surgery received after UF diagnosis (commercial, 68% [n = 70,235]; Medicaid, 75% [n = 6,928]). In both populations, 97% of patients had ≥ 1 outpatient visit from 14 days presurgery to 30 days postsurgery (commercial, n = 100,402; Medicaid, n = 9,023), and the majority of all UF-related surgeries occurred in the outpatient setting (commercial, 64% [n = 66,228]; Medicaid, 66% [n = 6,090]). Mean total all-cause costs for patients with UF who underwent any UF-related surgery were $15,813 (SD $13,804) in the commercial population (n = 95,433) and $11,493 (SD $26,724) in the Medicaid population (n = 4,785). Mean total all-cause costs for UF-related surgeries for the commercial/Medicaid populations were $17,450 (SD $13,483)/$12,273 (SD $19,637) for hysterectomy, $14,216 (SD $16,382)/$11,764 (SD $15,478) for myomectomy, $17,163 (SD $13,527)/$12,543 (SD $23,777) for UAE, $8,757 (SD $9,369)/$7,622 (SD $50,750) for ablation, and $12,281 (SD $10,080)/$5,989 (SD $5,617) for myomectomy and ablation. Mean total all-cause costs for any UF-related surgery performed in the outpatient setting in the commercial and Medicaid populations were $14,396 (SD $11,466) and $6,720 (SD $10,374), respectively, whereas costs in the inpatient setting were $18,345 (SD $16,910) and $21,805 (SD $43,244), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis indicated that surgical treatment options for UF continue to represent a substantial financial burden. This underscores the need for alternative, cost-effective treatments for the management of UF. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan, Dublin, Ireland. Allergan played a role in the conduct, analysis, interpretation, writing of the report, and decision to publish this study. Harrington and Ye are employees of Allergan. Stafkey-Mailey, Fuldeore, and Yue are employees of Xcenda. Ta was a contractor at Allergan at the time the study was conducted and is currently supported by a training grant from Allergan. Bonine, Shih, and Gillard are employees of Allergan and have stock, stock options, and/or restricted stock units as employees of Allergan. Banks has no disclosures to report. This study was presented as a poster at Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among women diagnosed with uterine fibroids compared to women without uterine fibroids.

Objective: To perform a retrospective, matched-cohort, longitudinal evaluation of annual pre- and post-diagnosis costs incurred among women with uterine fibroids (UF) (cases) compared to controls without UF. Methods: Data were derived from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicaid Multi-State databases. Women aged 18-64 years with ≥1 inpatient or outpatient medical claim with an initial UF diagnosis (index date) from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014 were included. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data including pharmacy, outpatient and inpatient hospital claims were collected for 1 year pre-index and ≤5 years post-index. All-cause costs (adjusted to 2017 $US) were compared between cases and controls using multivariable regression models. Results: Analysis included 205,098 (Commercial) and 24,755 (Medicaid) case-control pairs. HCRU and total all-cause healthcare costs were higher for cases versus controls during the pre-index year and all years post-index. Total unadjusted mean all-cause costs were $1197 higher (p < .0001; Commercial) and $2813 higher (standardized difference 0.08; Medicaid) for cases during the pre-index year. Total adjusted mean all-cause costs in the first year post-index were $14,917 for cases versus $5717 for controls in the Commercial population, and $20,244 versus $10,544, respectively, in the Medicaid population. In Years 2-5 post-index, incremental mean adjusted total costs decreased, but remained significantly higher for cases versus controls at all time points in both populations (all p < .05). Conclusions: Costs were higher for women with UF compared to women without UF during the pre-index year and over 5 years post-index; differences were greatest in the first year post-index.

Economic burden of hospital admissions for patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in the United States.

Objectives: We estimated the total US hospital costs associated with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) admissions as well as the admissions that may have been potential candidates for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). Methods: We assessed inpatient admissions for ABSSSI from the Premier database (2011-2014), focusing on all admissions of adults with length of stay (LOS) ≥ 1 days and a primary diagnosis of erysipelas, cellulitis/abscess, or wound infection. We performed a detailed analysis of 2014 admissions for patient, treatment, hospital, and economic characteristic variables. Using published selection criteria, we identified a subset of patients admitted in 2014 who may have been potential candidates for OPAT. Results: We analyzed 277,971 admissions. In 2014, most admissions were for cellulitis without major complications or comorbidities; mean ± SD LOS was 4.0 ± 3.0 days, and total hospital cost per admission was $6400 ± $6874, 54% of which was attributable to room costs. Among 2014 admissions, 14% involved patients with clinical characteristics suggesting that they were consistent with guideline recommendations for exclusive treatment with OPAT. Compared with all admissions in the year, these admissions were of younger patients (aged 50 vs. 55 years), admitted more frequently for cellulitis (90% vs. 70%), with shorter LOS (2.8 ± 1.8 days), and lower mean total hospital cost per admission ($4080 ± $3066). Conclusions: Admissions for ABSSSI impose a substantial cost to US hospitals, with half of costs attributable to room costs. When extrapolated to all US patients admitted to the hospital for ABSSSI during 2014, had OPAT guidelines been universally followed, admissions may have been reduced by 14%, thereby saving US hospitals $161 million.

Adherence and Persistence Across Antidepressant Therapeutic Classes: A Retrospective Claims Analysis Among Insured US Patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).

BACKGROUND: Adherence and persistence to therapy, or how well a patient follows provider directions on frequency and time to discontinuation of prescribed medications, is associated with positive health outcomes, including decreased healthcare costs and patient mortality. A clear literature gap exists assessing adherence and persistence to antidepressants (ADs) in the major depressive disorder (MDD) population at clinically relevant time points and at the therapeutic class level. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed adherence and persistence to specific ADs, therapeutic classes, and AD therapy overall at multiple time points among US individuals from commercial, Medicare supplemental, and Medicaid insurance plans. METHODS: Patients with MDD without AD or MDD claims in the prior 6 months who initiated therapy in 2003-2014 with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), tricyclic AD (TCA), monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI), or other AD were identified using MarketScan® databases. These databases contain information on diagnoses, billing codes, and dates of service. Adherence (proportion of days covered) and persistence (days until a 30-day gap in therapy) were calculated to AD medication, AD therapeutic class, and AD therapy overall over the first 3, 6, 9, and 12 months from the index prescription date. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of adherence to initial AD medication comparing AD therapeutic classes. RESULTS: For 527,907 patients, adherence to initial AD medication decreased over 3, 6, 9, and 12 months (41, 31, 24, and 21%, respectively). Similar patterns were observed for adherence to initial AD therapeutic class, AD therapy overall, and all three persistence calculations. The odds of adherence to SNRIs versus SSRIs were 20-27% greater at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months (ORs 1.20, 1.23, 1.25, 1.27, respectively; p-values all <0.0001). Similar or significantly lower odds of adherence were demonstrated for other classes versus SSRIs at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months [ORs for other ADs 0.80, 0.77, 0.74, 0.72, respectively (p-values all <0.0001); ORs for TCAs 0.46, 0.45, 0.47, 0.49, respectively (p-values all <0.0001); ORs for MAOIs 1.13, 1.0, 0.77, 0.69, respectively (p-values all >0.05)]. CONCLUSION: We found low adherence and persistence to ADs in the MDD population. Within the limitations of the insurance claims data we analysed, our results suggest that adherence may differ based on therapeutic class, as patients initiating SNRI therapy appeared to have a higher likelihood of adherence versus SSRIs over the year assessed, while the odds of adherence appeared similar or lower for other classes versus SSRIs. Further prospective research is needed to confirm these findings and determine additional drivers of these apparent differences by AD therapeutic class.

Persistence and switching patterns of oral migraine prophylactic medications among patients with chronic migraine: A retrospective claims analysis.

Background Migraine prevention guidelines recommend oral prophylactic medications for patients with frequent headache. This study examined oral migraine preventive medication (OMPM) treatment patterns by evaluating medication persistence, switching, and re-initiation in patients with chronic migraine (CM). Methods A retrospective US claims analysis (Truven Health MarketScan® Databases) evaluated patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with CM who had initiated an OMPM between 1 January, 2008 and 30 September, 2012. Treatment persistence was measured at six and 12 months' follow-up. Time-to-discontinuation was assessed for each OMPM and compared using Cox regression models. Among those who discontinued, the proportion that switched OMPMs within 60 days or re-initiated treatment between 61 to 365 days, and their associated persistence rates, were also assessed. Results A total of 8707 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Persistence to the initial OMPM was 25% at six months and 14% at 12 months. Based on Kaplan-Meier curves, a sharp decline of patients discontinuing was observed by 30 days, and approximately half discontinued by 60 days. Similar trends in time-to-discontinuation were seen following the second or third OMPM. Amitriptyline, gabapentin, and nortriptyline had significantly higher likelihood of non-persistence compared with topiramate. Among patients who discontinued, 23% switched to another prophylactic and 41% re-initiated therapy within one year. Among patients who switched, persistence was between 10 to 13% and among re-initiated patients, persistence was between 4 to 8% at 12 months. Conclusions Persistence to OMPMs is poor at six months and declines further by 12 months. Switching between OMPMs is common, but results indicate that persistence worsens as patients cycle through various OMPMs.

Caregiver burden, productivity loss, and indirect costs associated with caring for patients with poststroke spasticity.

OBJECTIVE: Many stroke survivors experience poststroke spasticity and the related inability to perform basic activities, which necessitates patient management and treatment, and exerts a considerable burden on the informal caregiver. The current study aims to estimate burden, productivity loss, and indirect costs for caregivers of stroke survivors with spasticity. METHODS: Internet survey data were collected from 153 caregivers of stroke survivors with spasticity including caregiving time and difficulty (Oberst Caregiver Burden Scale), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment measures, and caregiver and patient characteristics. Fractional logit models examined predictors of work-related restriction, and work losses were monetized (2012 median US wages). RESULTS: Mean Oberst Caregiver Burden Scale time and difficulty scores were 46.1 and 32.4, respectively. Employed caregivers (n=71) had overall work restriction (32%), absenteeism (9%), and presenteeism (27%). Caregiver characteristics, lack of nursing home coverage, and stroke survivors' disability predicted all work restriction outcomes. The mean total lost-productivity cost per employed caregiver was US$835 per month (>$10,000 per year; 72% attributable to presenteeism). CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate the substantial burden of caring for stroke survivors with spasticity illustrating the societal and economic impact of stroke that extends beyond the stroke survivor.

Poststroke spasticity: sequelae and burden on stroke survivors and caregivers.

Among the estimated 20% to 40% of stroke survivors who develop spasticity, the burden of this condition on patients, caregivers, and society is substantial. Stroke survivors with spasticity may experience reductions in their ability to perform activities of daily living and in their health-related quality of life. The occurrence of spasticity in stroke survivors may also result in an increased burden on their caregivers, who exhibit poorer physical and emotional health as compared with the general population. The responsibilities that caregivers have to the stroke survivor--in terms of providing medical care, protecting from falls, and assisting with feeding and hygiene, among other tasks of daily living--must be balanced with their responsibilities to other family members and to themselves. Caregivers of stroke survivors often report a feeling of confinement with little opportunity for relief, and although social support can be helpful, it is frequently limited in its availability. In terms of the socioeconomic burden of spasticity after stroke, recent data point to a 4-fold increase in health care costs associated with stroke survivors with spasticity compared with stroke survivors without spasticity. Thus, it is important to reduce the burden of spasticity after stroke. Consequently, effective spasticity treatment that reduces spasticity and the level of disability experienced by stroke survivors will likely increase their functioning and their health-related quality of life and will also result in a diminished burden on their caregivers.