RESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence, healthcare resource utilization and costs (HCRU&C) of knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients versus controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective, matched-cohort administrative claims analysis using IBM MarketScan databases (2011-2017). Newly diagnosed, adult (18+ yrs) knee OA patients identified by ICD9/10 code were matched 1:1 to controls by age, sex, payer, and geography; alpha level set to 0.05. Prevalence was estimated for 2017. All-cause and knee OA-related HCRU&C reported per-patient-per-year (PPPY) over follow-up period up to 4 years. RESULTS: Overall 2017 knee OA prevalence was 4% (615,514 knee OA/15.4M adults). A total of 510,605 patients meeting inclusion criteria were matched 1:1 with controls. The knee OA cohort had mean age 60 years and was 58% female. Versus controls, knee OA patients had significantly more PPPY outpatient (84.5 versus 45.0) and pharmacy (29.8 versus 19.8) claims, and significantly higher PPPY outpatient costs ($12,571 versus $6,465), and pharmacy costs ($3,655 versus $2,038). Knee OA patients incurred $7,707 more PPPY total healthcare costs than controls, of which $4,674 (60.6%) were knee OA-related medical claims and $1,926 (25%) were knee OA-related medications of interest. PPPY costs for nonselective NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, intraarticular hyaluronic acid, non-acute opioids, and knee replacement were higher for knee OA patients than controls. Using median and mean all-cause total cost ($9,330 and $24,550, respectively), the estimated sum cost of knee OA patients in MarketScan ranged from $5.7B to $15B annually. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis demonstrated an annual 2017 prevalence of 4.0% (≥18 years) and 13.2% (≥65 years) for newly diagnosed knee OA patients. Compared with controls, all-cause costs were significantly higher for knee OA patients, nearly double that of matched controls, attributable to increased medical and treatment costs and comorbidity treatment burden. Additionally, the estimated annual cost of knee OA treatment was substantial, ranging between $5.7 billion and $15 billion.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases (BM) is difficult to treat and associated with poor survival. This study assessed the impact of BM on healthcare-related utilization and costs (HRUC) among patients receiving epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults newly-diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC, initiating first-/second-generation EGFR-TKI treatment, with BM or no BM (NBM), were identified retrospectively from IBM MarketScan healthcare claims databases (2013-2017). HRUC were measured during the variable-length follow-up period. Generalized linear models assessed the impact of BM on total healthcare costs, standardized to 2017 US$. RESULTS: Overall, 222 BM and 280 NBM patients were included, with a mean duration of follow-up of 14 months. Adjusted NSCLC-related and all-cause costs over average follow-up were 1.2 times higher among BM patients (Δ$5,640 and Δ$6,366, respectively; p <0.05); differences were driven primarily by radiation treatment and radiology. More than two times more BM than NBM patients received NSCLC-related radiation treatment, in both inpatient (15.3% vs 6.8%; p <0.05) and outpatient settings (87.8% vs 37.5%; p <0.05). Per-patient per-month (PPPM) radiation costs were also higher among BM patients, both inpatient ($796 vs $464, p =0.172) and outpatient ($2,443 vs $747, p <0.05). All-cause PPPM radiology visits (2.0 vs 1.3) and associated costs ($3,824 vs $1,621) were higher among BM patients (both p <0.05). CONCLUSION: NSCLC-related HRUC, especially those attributable to radiation treatment, were higher among patients with BM. Future research should compare the potential for CNS-active EGFR-TKIs vs first-/second-generation EGFR-TKIs combined with radiotherapy to reduce HRUC.