Increased health care costs associated with new persistent opioid use after major surgery in opioid-naive patients.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use after surgery is associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Although some studies show that surgical patients may later become persistent opioid users, data on the association between new persistent opioid use after surgery and health care utilization and costs are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care utilization and costs after major inpatient or METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Research databases were used to identify opioid-naive patients with major inpatient or outpatient surgeries and at least 1 year of continuous enrollment before and after this index surgery. Cohorts were stratified by new persistent opioid utilization status, setting of surgery (inpatient, outpatient), and payer (commercial, Medicare, Medicaid). Patients were considered new persistent opioid users if they had at least 1 opioid claim 4-90 days after index surgery and at least 1 opioid claim 91-180 days after index surgery. Patients with opioid prescription claims between 1 year and 15 days before their index event were excluded. Health care utilization and costs (excluding index surgery) were measured in the 1-year period after surgery. Predicted costs and cost ratios were estimated using multivariable log-linked gamma-family generalized linear models. RESULTS: In the inpatient cohorts, 827,583 commercial, 186,154 Medicare, and 104,734 Medicaid patients were included in the study, and the incidence of new persistent opioid use in these cohorts was 4.1%, 5.6%, and 7.1%, respectively. In the outpatient cohorts, 1,542,565 commercial, 390,876 Medicare, and 94,878 Medicaid patients were selected, with 2.0%, 1.5%, and 6.4% new persistent opioid use, respectively. Across all 3 payers in both surgical settings, patients with new persistent opioid use had a higher comorbidity burden and more use of concomitant medications in the baseline period. In the 1-year period after index surgery, patients with new persistent opioid use had more inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, and ambulance/paramedic service use than patients without persistent use, regardless of payer and setting. Patients with new persistent opioid use had approximately 5 times more opioid prescriptions and also had more nonopioid pharmacy claims than those without persistent use across all cohorts. After covariate adjustment, predicted 1-year total health care costs were significantly higher for patients with new persistent opioid use compared with those without persistent use for all comparisons (commercial inpatient: $29,499 vs. $11,798; Medicare inpatient: $34,455 vs. $21,313; Medicaid inpatient: $14,622 vs. $6,678; commercial outpatient: $18,751 vs. $7,517; Medicare outpatient ($26,411 vs. $13,577; Medicaid outpatient: $12,381 vs. $6,784; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: New persistent opioid use after major surgery in opioid-naive patients is associated with increased health care utilization and costs in the year after surgery across all surgical settings and payers. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Heron Therapeutics, which participated in analysis and interpretation of data, drafting, reviewing, and approving the publication. All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data and development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. England and Evans-Shields are employees of Heron Therapeutics. Kong, Lew, Zimmerman, and Henriques are employees of IBM Watson Health, which was compensated by Heron Therapeutics for conducting this research. Brummett is a paid consultant for Heron Therapeutics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Alosa Health and provides expert testimony. He further reports receipt of research funding from MDHHS (Sub K Michigan Open), NIDA (Centralized Pain Opioid Non-Responsiveness R01 DA038261-05), NIH0DHHS-US-16 PAF 07628 (R01 NR017096-05), NIH-DHHS (P50 AR070600-05 CORT), NIH-DHHS-US (K23 DA038718-04), NIH-DHHS-US-16-PAF06270 (R01 HD088712-05), NIH-DHHS-US-17-PAF02680 (R01 DA042859-05), and UM Michigan Genomics Initiative and holds a patent for peripheral perineural dexmedetomidine. Sun reports funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K08DA042314) as well as consulting fees from the Mission Lisa Foundation that are unrelated to this work.

Treatment patterns and direct medical costs among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIMS: This study assessed the real-world United States (US) treatment patterns and the associated economic burden in patients diagnosed with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The MarketScan database was used to identify patients newly diagnosed with HCC who received systemic therapy between 2011 and 2018 and continuously enrolled for ≥6 months (baseline period) prior and ≥1 month following HCC diagnosis. Treatment patterns (systemic and locoregional therapy), healthcare resource utilization, and costs were reported during follow-up. RESULTS: The final sample included 1580 patients (median age, 61; 78% male; median follow up, 8.7 months). The most common first line of therapy (LOT) was sorafenib (78%). The median time from HCC diagnosis to start of sorafenib was 43 days, and the median duration of sorafenib therapy was 60 days. Only 17% of patients received second LOT, and non-sorafenib treatment use increased to 66% (mostly chemotherapy combination). Transarterial chemoembolization was the most commonly observed locoregional therapy prior to the first LOT. The multivariable-adjusted average all-cause total cost among sorafenib treated patients was $17,642 (95% CI: $16,711-$18,558) per-patient per-month), of which $11,393 were HCC-specific. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who received first-line therapy for HCC, the duration of therapy was short (potentially due to progression or tolerability). Most patients did not continue to second-line therapy. Despite the short duration of therapy, HCC patients still incur a high economic burden, and there is a need for more effective and tolerable treatments.

Health Care Burden Associated with Outpatient Opioid Use Following Inpatient or Outpatient Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of postsurgical pain with prescription opioids has been associated with persistent opioid use and increased health care utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the health care burden between opioid-naive adult patients who were prescribed opioids after a major surgery and opioidnaive adult patients who were not prescribed opioids. METHODS: Administrative claims data from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Research Databases for 2010-2016 were used. Opioid-naive adult patients who underwent major inpatient or outpatient surgery and who had at least 1 year of continuous enrollment before and after the index surgery date were eligible for inclusion. Cohorts were defined based on an opioid pharmacy claim between 7 days before index surgery and 1 year after index surgery (opioid use during surgery and inpatient use were not available). To ensure an opioid-naive population, patients with opioid claims between 365 and 8 days before surgery were excluded. Acute medical outcomes, opioid utilization, health care utilization, and costs were measured during the post-index period (index surgery hospitalization and day of index outpatient surgery not included). Predicted costs were estimated from multivariable log-linked gamma-generalized linear models. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 1,174,905 opioid-naive patients with an inpatient surgery (73% commercial, 20% Medicare, 7% Medicaid) and 2,930,216 opioid-naive patients with an outpatient surgery (74% commercial, 23% Medicare, and 3% Medicaid). Opioid use after discharge was common among all 3 payer types but was less common among Medicare patients (63% inpatient/43% outpatient) than patients with commercial (80% inpatient/75% outpatient) or Medicaid insurance (86% inpatient/81% outpatient). Across all 3 payers, opioid users were younger, were more likely to be female, and had a higher preoperative comorbidity burden than nonopioid users. In unadjusted analyses, opioid users tended to have more hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims. Adjusted predicted 1-year post-period total health care costs were significantly higher (P< 0.001) for opioid users than nonopioid users for commercial insurance (inpatient: $22,209 vs. $14,439; outpatient: $13,897 vs. $8,825), Medicare (inpatient: $31,721 vs. $26,761; outpatient: $24,529 vs. $15,225), and Medicaid (inpatient: $13,512 vs. $9,204; outpatient: $11,975 vs. $8,212). CONCLUSIONS: Filling an outpatient opioid prescription (vs. no opioid prescription) in the 1 year after inpatient or outpatient surgery was associated with increased health care utilization and costs across all payers. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Heron Therapeutics, which participated in analysis and interpretation of data, drafting, reviewing, and approving the publication. All authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. Brummett is a paid consultant for Heron Therapeutics and Recro Pharma and reports receipt of research funding from MDHHS (Sub K Michigan Open), NIDA (Centralized Pain Opioid Non-Responsiveness R01 DA038261-05), NIH0DHHS-US-16 PAF 07628 (R01 NR017096-05), NIH-DHHS (P50 AR070600-05 CORT), NIH-DHHS-US (K23 DA038718-04), NIH-DHHS-US-16-PAF06270 (R01 HD088712-05), NIH-DHHS-US-17-PAF02680 (R01 DA042859-05), and UM Michigan Genomics Initiative and holding a patent for peripheral perineural dexmedetomidine. Oderda is a paid consultant for Heron Therapeutics. Pawasauskas is a paid consultant to Heron Therapeutics and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. England and Evans-Shields are employees of Heron Therapeutics. Kong, Lew, Zimmerman, and Henriques are employees of IBM Watson Health, which was compensated by Heron Therapeutics for conducting this research. Portions of this work were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2019; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Comparison of all-cause, stroke, and bleed-specific healthcare resource utilization among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: We compared healthcare utilization outcomes and persistence among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Using a nationwide, US administrative claims database, a retrospective matched-cohort of newly diagnosed NVAF patients (age≥18 years) treated with dabigatran or warfarin (propensity score matched 1:1) in 01/01/2011-12/31/2013 was evaluated. All-cause, stroke-, and bleed-specific per patient per month (PPPM) healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), incidence rate of hospitalization for stroke or bleed, 30-day readmission, and persistence were reported. RESULTS: In total, 18,890 dabigatran patients were matched to corresponding warfarin patients. Compared to warfarin users, dabigatran users PPPM had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations (0.04 vs 0.05), total outpatient visits (3.98 vs 5.87), and lower 30-day readmissions (14.5% vs 17.4%, all p < 0.001). Dabigatran users had lower incidence rate for stroke (0.65 vs 1.06) and bleed (1.69 vs 2.20), stroke (0.0006 vs 0.0011, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific hospitalizations (0.002 vs 0.003, p = 0.008), and stroke (0.03 vs 0.04, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific outpatient visits (0.07 vs 0.08, p = 0.018), and significantly lower non-persistence (62.1% vs 66.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among newly diagnosed newly treated NVAF patients, dabigatran users had significantly lower all-cause, stroke- and bleed-specific HCRU, lower risk of hospitalization for stroke or bleed events, lower 30-day readmissions, and higher persistence than warfarin users.

Comparison of stroke- and bleed-related healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation and newly treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: This is one of the first head-to-head real-world evidence studies comparing stroke-related and bleed-related healthcare and resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating oral anticoagulants. METHODS: Adult NVAF patients newly diagnosed and treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2014 were identified using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Per-patient-per-month stroke and bleed-related HCRU and costs were reported. RESULTS: Dabigatran patients were matched 1:1 to 26,592 rivaroxaban and 33,024 warfarin patients (mean age=68 years). Compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related inpatient and outpatient HCRU (0.004 vs. 0.005; 0.099 vs. 0.145) and significantly lower adjusted bleed-related costs ($116 vs. $172), all p <0.05. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran patients had significantly lower stroke-related outpatient visits (0.034 vs. 0.048, p<0.001) and higher bleed-related outpatient visits (0.101 vs. 0.091, p=0.045). Multivariate adjusted bleed-related costs were significantly lower for dabigatran patients than warfarin patients ($94 vs. $138, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related HCRU and costs than rivaroxaban patients, and lower outpatient stroke-related HCRU, higher bleed-related outpatient HCRU, and lower bleed-related costs than warfarin patients. It provides valuable stroke-related and bleed-related HCRU and costs information among commercially insured and Medicare patients.

Comparison of all-cause costs and healthcare resource use among patients with newly-diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation newly treated with oral anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVES: Compare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among newly-diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. METHODS: Newly-diagnosed adult NVAF patients initiating dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin (index event) between October 1, 2010-December 31, 2014 were identified using MarketScan claims data, and followed until medication discontinuation, switch, inpatient death, enrollment end, or study end (December 31, 2015). Dabigatran patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 separately with apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin patients. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause cost, HCRU, and 30-day re-admissions were reported. Costs were analyzed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Final cohorts, each matched with dabigatran patients, included 8,857 apixaban patients, 26,592 rivaroxaban patients, and 33,046 warfarin patients. Dabigatran patients had lower adjusted PPPM total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs compared to rivaroxaban ($4,093 vs $4,636, $1,476 vs $1,862, and $2,016 vs $2,121, respectively, all p ≤ .001) and warfarin ($4,199 vs $4,872, $1,505 vs $1,851, and $2,049 vs $2,514, respectively, all p < .001). Adjusted costs were similar for dabigatran and apixaban. Dabigatran patients had significantly fewer hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and pharmacy claims than rivaroxaban patients (0.06 vs 0.07, 4.84 vs 4.96 and 4.80 vs 4.93, respectively, all p < .020) and warfarin patients (0.06 vs 0.07, 4.77 vs 6.88, and 4.76 vs 5.89, respectively, all p < .001). Dabigatran patients had similar hospitalizations to apixaban, but higher outpatient visits (4.70 vs 4.31) and pharmacy claims (4.86 vs 4.61), both p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study found adjusted all-cause costs were lower for dabigatran compared to rivaroxaban and warfarin patients and similar to apixaban patients.

All-Cause, Stroke-, and Bleed-Specific Healthcare Costs: Comparison among Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) Newly Treated with Dabigatran or Warfarin.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare all-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific healthcare costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Administrative claims data from the MarketScan® Databases for 2009-2014 were used. Patients with NVAF newly treated with dabigatran were matched 1:1 to those treated with warfarin. All-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($US, year 2015 values) up to a 12-month follow-up period were analyzed. Stroke- or bleed-specific costs were defined as hospitalizations with stroke or bleed as the primary discharge diagnosis and outpatient claims with stroke or bleed diagnosis in any position. Differences in costs between dabigatran and warfarin users were assessed using descriptive and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 18,980 dabigatran-treated patients were matched to corresponding warfarin-treated patients. Adjusted all-cause total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran cohort ($US3053 vs. 3433; $US904 vs. 1194; $US1594 vs. 1894, respectively; all p < 0.001), but mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher ($US556 vs. 345, p < 0.001). Stroke-specific total healthcare and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US30.37 vs. 40.99 and $US7.36 vs. 12.20, respectively; p < 0.05 for both values). Similarly, bleed-specific total healthcare and inpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US50.00 vs. 73.49 and $US27.75 vs. 48.66, respectively; p < 0.01 for both values). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving dabigatran had significantly lower total all-cause, inpatient, and outpatient costs but higher pharmacy costs than those receiving warfarin. In addition, stroke-specific total and outpatient costs and bleed-specific total and inpatient costs were significantly lower in dabigatran users compared with warfarin users.