Long-Term Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs among Patients with Myasthenia Gravis: A Swedish Nationwide Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare costs and societal impact of myasthenia gravis (MG), a potentially life-threatening rare, chronic neuromuscular disease, are sparsely studied. We assessed healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs among patients with newly diagnosed (ND) and preexisting (PE) MG in Sweden. METHODS: This observational, retrospective cohort study used data from four linkable Swedish nationwide population-based registries. Adult MG patients receiving pharmacological treatment for MG and having ≥24-month follow-up during the period January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, were included. RESULTS: A total of 1,275 patients were included in the analysis, of which 554 patients were categorized into the ND MG group and 721 into the PE MG group. Mean (±SD) age was 61.3 (±17.4) years, and 52.3% were female. In the first year post-diagnosis, ND patients had significantly higher utilization of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (96.0% vs. 83.9%), corticosteroids (59.6% vs. 45.8%), thymectomy (12.1% vs. 0.7%), and plasma exchange (3.8% vs. 0.6%); had higher all-cause (70.9% vs. 35.8%) and MG-related (62.5% vs. 18.4%) hospitalization rates with 11 more hospitalization days (all p < 0.01) and an increased risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [95% CI] = 4.4 [3.43, 5.64]) than PE MG. In year 1 post-diagnosis, ND MG patients incurred EUR 7,302 (p < 0.01) higher total all-cause costs than PE MG, of which 84% were estimated to be MG-related and the majority (86%) were related to inpatient care. These results remained significant also after controlling for baseline demographics and comorbidities (p < 0.01). In year 2 post-diagnosis, the all-cause medical costs decreased by ∼55% for ND MG from year 1 and were comparable with PE MG. CONCLUSION: In this population-based study, MG patients required significantly more healthcare resources in year 1 post-diagnosis than PE MG primarily due to more pharmacological treatments, thymectomies, and associated hospitalizations. These findings highlight the need to better understand potential factors including disease characteristics associated with increased health resource use and costs and need for more efficacious treatments early in the disease course.

Incremental Health Care Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression Among Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Payers.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared health care use and costs among patients with treatment-resistant versus treatment-responsive depression across Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using Truven Health Analytics' commercial (2006-2017; N=111,544), Medicaid (2007-2017; N=24,036), and Medicare supplemental (2006-2017; N=8,889) claims databases. Participants were adults with major depressive disorder who had received one or more antidepressant treatments. Treatment resistance was defined as failure of two or more antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration. Annual use (hospitalizations and outpatient and emergency department [ED] visits) and costs were compared across patients by treatment-resistant status in each payer population. Incremental burden of treatment-resistant depression was estimated with regression analyses. Monthly changes in costs during 1-year follow-up were assessed to understand differential cost trends by treatment-resistant status. RESULTS: In the three payer populations, patients with treatment-resistant depression incurred higher health care utilization than those with treatment-responsive depression (hospitalization, odds ratios [ORs]=1.32-1.76; ED visits, ORs=1.38-1.45; outpatient visits, incident rate ratio=1.29-1.54; p<0.001 for all). Compared with those with treatment-responsive depression, those with treatment resistance incurred higher annual costs (from $4,093 to $8,054 higher; p<0.001). Patients with treatment-resistant depression had higher costs at baseline compared with patients with treatment-responsive depression and incurred higher costs each month throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-resistant depression imposes a significant health care burden on insurers. Treatment-resistant depression may exist and affect health care burden before a patient is identified as having treatment-resistant depression. Findings underscore the need for effective and timely treatment of treatment-resistant depression.