Survival and Economic Impact of Rapid Prostate-Specific Antigen Doubling Time in Patients With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is associated with risk of metastasis and survival. This study evaluated the association of PSADT with clinical and economic outcomes in a real-world setting among patients with nmCRPC not receiving novel hormonal therapy (NHT), using 2-month PSADT thresholds. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified Veterans Health Administration patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and ≥2 PSA increases after medical/surgical castration (2012-2016). The third measurement was the index (CRPC) date. Patients with ≥3 postindex PSA measurements, including index, were followed until death or ≥12 months until disenrollment, study end, or death, and grouped into 2-month cohorts based on postindex PSADT. Cox regression models assessed association between PSADT, time to metastasis, and death. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2800 evaluable patients, median follow-up was 30 months and median PSADT was 17 months. Relative to the reference cohort (PSADT >12 months), all cohorts had significantly higher metastasis risk. PSADT ≤10-month cohorts had significantly greater mortality risk than the reference; hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) ranged from 12.3 (9.2, 16.4) in the PSADT ≤2-month cohort to 1.3 (0.9, 2.0) in the >10 to ≤12-month cohort. Total costs were significantly higher for cohorts up to and including the PSADT >8 to ≤10-month cohort, than for the reference cohort. Mean per patient per month all-cause medical plus pharmacy costs were $6623, $4768, and $4049 in the PSADT ≤2-month, >2 to ≤4-month cohort, and >4 to ≤6-month cohorts, respectively, versus $1911 in the PSADT >12-month cohort (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Most patients with nmCRPC have PSADT >12 months and a long natural history. For those with shorter PSADT, the risk of metastasis, death, and costs increased. These data can help select patients for NHT and conversely those who can safely delay NHT for nmCRPC.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and/or Peripheral Artery Disease.

To address literature gaps on treatment with real-world evidence, this study compared effectiveness, safety, and cost outcomes in NVAF patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease (CAD, PAD) prescribed apixaban versus other oral anticoagulants. NVAF patients aged ≥65 years co-diagnosed with CAD/PAD initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were selected from the US Medicare population (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching was used to match apixaban versus warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban cohorts. Cox models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), all-cause mortality, and a composite of stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality. Generalized linear and two-part models were used to compare stroke/SE, MB, and all-cause costs between cohorts. A total of 33,269 warfarin-apixaban, 9,335 dabigatran-apixaban, and 33,633 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were identified after matching. Compared with apixaban, stroke/SE risk was higher in warfarin (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61 to 2.31), dabigatran (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.43), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.51) patients. MB risk was higher in warfarin (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.83), dabigatran (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.68), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.05) patients vs apixaban. Stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs per-patient per-month were higher in warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban patients versus apixaban. Total all-cause health care costs were higher in warfarin and rivaroxaban patients compared with apixaban patients. In conclusion, compared with apixaban, patients on dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin had a higher risk of stroke/SE, MB, and event-related costs.

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with polypharmacy.

AIMS: Polypharmacy is prevalent among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients and presents a potential issue for the effective management of NVAF. This study compared the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among NVAF patients with polypharmacy newly prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs). METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective study of NVAF patients with polypharmacy who initiated OACs from 01 January 2013 to 30 September 2015 was conducted using US CMS Medicare and four commercial databases. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥6 concomitant medications on the index date. Propensity score matching was conducted to compare non-vitamin K antagonists OACs (NOACs) to warfarin as well as between NOACs. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/SE and MB. A total of 188 893 patients with polypharmacy were included, with an average of 8 concomitant medications (interquartile range 6-9). Compared to warfarin, apixaban [hazard ratio (HR): 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.68], and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.69-0.83) were associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE. Apixaban (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.54-0.61) and dabigatran (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.88) were associated with a decreased risk of MB compared with warfarin. Compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE and MB. Dabigatran was associated with lower risk of MB compared with rivaroxaban. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of anticoagulated NVAF patients with polypharmacy, effectiveness and safety profiles are more favourable for NOACs vs. warfarin. Our observations are hypothesis generating and may help inform future clinical trials regarding appropriate OAC treatment selection in polypharmacy patients.

Safety and effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin among clinically-relevant subgroups of venous thromboembolism patients in the United States Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: The AMPLIFY trial found significantly lower major bleeding (MB) and similar recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) risks associated with apixaban vs warfarin among patients with VTE. OBJECTIVES: To compare MB, clinically-relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding, and recurrent VTE risks among clinically-relevant subgroups of newly diagnosed elderly patients with VTE prescribed apixaban vs warfarin. METHODS: US Medicare patients prescribed apixaban or warfarin within 30 days post-VTE encounter were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for patient characteristics. Cox models were used to assess MB, CRNM bleeding, and recurrent VTE. Subgroup analyses were conducted for index VTE encounter type, index VTE diagnosis type, index VTE etiology, sex, and frailty. RESULTS: Post-PSM, 11,363 matched pairs of patients prescribed apixaban or warfarin were identified. Apixaban had lower MB (Hazard Ratio [HR]:0.76; 95% CI:0.64-0.91) and similar recurrent VTE risks (HR:1.04; 95% CI:0.75-1.43) vs warfarin. No significant interactions were observed between treatment and index VTE encounter type, index VTE diagnosis type, or sex for risk of MB, CRNM bleeding, or recurrent VTE. Significant interactions: frail patients prescribed apixaban had a 15% lower, while non-frail patients prescribed apixaban had 32% lower CRNM bleeding risk vs those prescribed warfarin. Patients with provoked VTE prescribed apixaban trended toward a higher, while those with unprovoked VTE trended toward a lower risk of recurrent VTE vs patients prescribed warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban was associated with significantly lower risks of MB and CRNM bleeding, and similar risk of recurrent VTE as compared with warfarin across the overall population and most subgroups.

Clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) transitioning from hospital to post-discharge settings.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined anticoagulant use during and after a hospital encounter for venous thromboembolism (VTE), a transition of care largely uncharacterized in the literature. METHODS: Adults with a VTE diagnosis code during a hospital encounter (emergency department [ED], observation area [OBS], or inpatient hospital [IP]) from January 2012 to August 2017 were identified in an electronic health records database. The first such hospital encounter was defined as the index VTE encounter. Patients were linked to a claims database and required to be continuously enrolled for six months before the index admission date through six months after the index discharge date. Anticoagulants administered during the index VTE encounter and filled on or within 30 days of discharge were summarized descriptively overall, and by the type of index VTE encounter (IP, No IP) and anticoagulants administered during the index VTE encounter. RESULTS: Among 2,968 eligible patients, mean (SD) age was 64 (16) years, 51% were female, 67% had an IP index VTE encounter, and 77% received anticoagulation therapy during the index VTE encounter. In total, 60% filled a prescription order for anticoagulant within 30 days post-discharge. Of those who received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), warfarin, or parenteral anticoagulant only during the index VTE encounter, 74%, 69%, and 34%, respectively, filled a prescription for the same anticoagulant post-discharge. Patients treated with a DOAC or warfarin during an ED or OBS VTE encounter without a subsequent inpatient hospitalization were more likely to remain on the same anticoagulation therapy post-discharge than those with an inpatient hospitalization (81% vs 69% for DOAC and 75% vs 68% for warfarin). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients treated with anticoagulation therapy during a VTE hospital encounter did not fill a prescription for an anticoagulant within 30 days post-discharge, highlighting an opportunity for improved management of care transitions in this patient population.

The atrial FibriLlatiOn real World management registry in the Middle East and Africa: design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, affecting 33.5 million patients globally. It is associated with increased morbidity, leading to significant clinical and economic burden. There exist only limited data in the Middle Eastern region from the existing registries. The goal of the FLOW-AF (atrial FibriLlatiOn real World management registry in the Middle East and Africa) registry is to evaluate the characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical and economic outcomes associated with anticoagulation among patients newly diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in Egypt, Lebanon, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. METHODS: This study will be a multicountry, multicenter, prospective observational registry aiming to enroll 1446 newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients at more than 20 sites across the four countries. During the recruitment period, patients will be included if they were newly diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and had initiated treatment for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism. Patient data will be assessed prospectively at 6 and 12 months from their enrollment date. Demographics, clinical characteristics, antithrombotic treatments received, clinical outcomes, adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and direct costs associated with management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation will be collected and analyzed overall, by country, and by groups created based on treatment, demographics, and clinical characteristics, medical history and risk factors. CONCLUSION: The FLOW-AF registry will provide information on the uptake of oral anticoagulants, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare utilization and costs among newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients in the Middle Eastern region.

Comparative Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Warfarin Versus Apixaban in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolism in a Large U.S. Commercial Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), constituting deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a common cause of vascular-related morbidity and mortality, resulting in a significant clinical and economic burden in the United States each year. Clinical guidelines recommend that patients with DVT and PE without cancer should be initiated on anticoagulation therapy with a direct oral anticoagulant over a vitamin K antagonist. Yet there is limited real-world evidence comparing the economic burden of warfarin and apixaban in treating VTE patients in a large commercially insured population. OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and effectiveness of warfarin and apixaban and evaluate associated economic burden in treating VTE patients in a large U.S. commercial health care claims database. METHODS: The PharMetrics Plus database was used to identify oral anticoagulant (OAC)-naive patients aged ≥ 18 years who initiated apixaban or warfarin within 30 days of a qualifying VTE encounter and had continuous health plan enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits for 6 months before treatment initiation. Apixaban initiators and warfarin initiators were matched using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess and compare the risk of major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding, and recurrent VTE. Generalized linear models were used to assess and compare the all-cause health care costs. A 2-part model with bootstrapping was used to evaluate MB- and recurrent VTE-related medical costs. RESULTS: Among 25,193 prematched patients, 13,421 (53.3%) were prescribed warfarin and 11,772 (46.7%) were prescribed apixaban. After 1:1 PSM, 8,858 matched warfarin-apixaban pairs were selected with a mean follow-up of 109 days and 103 days, respectively. Warfarin was associated with a significantly higher risk of MB (HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.14-2.04), CRNM bleeding (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1017.15-1.40), and recurrent VTE (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.24-1.82) compared with apixaban. Warfarin patients had significantly higher all-cause medical costs per patient per month (PPPM; $2,333 vs. $1,992; P = 0.001), MB-related costs PPPM ($112 vs. $65; P = 0.020), and recurrent VTE-related costs PPPM ($287 vs. $206; P = 0.014) compared with apixaban patients. Warfarin patients had similar all-cause total health care costs PPPM ($2,630 vs. $2,420; P = 0.051) compared with apixaban patients. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin use was associated with a higher risk of MB, CRNM bleeding, and recurrent VTE compared with apixaban. Warfarin use was also associated with higher all-cause medical costs, MB-related medical costs, and recurrent VTE-related costs PPPM compared with apixaban. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which were also involved in the study design, as well as writing and revising of the manuscript. Guo, Rajpura, Okano, and Rosenblatt are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. Hlavacek, Mardekian, and Russ are employees of Pfizer. Keshishian, Sah, Delinger, and Mu are employees of SIMR, LLC, which received funding from the study sponsors to conduct this study.

A Real-World Observational Study of Hospitalization and Health Care Costs Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Prescribed Oral Anticoagulants in the U.S. Medicare Population.

This article has been corrected. Please see J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 2020;26(5):682 BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban-are at least as effective and safe as warfarin for the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few studies have compared oral anticoagulants (OACs) among elderly patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospitalization risks (all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related) and associated health care costs among elderly nonvalvular AF (NVAF) patients in the Medicare population who initiated warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014. Patients initiating each OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographic and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of hospitalization of each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear models and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs between matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 264,479 eligible patients, 77,480 warfarin-apixaban, 41,580 dabigatran-apixaban, and 77,640 rivaroxaban-apixaban patients were matched. The OACs were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.23-1.31, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08-1.18, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.18-1.26, P < 0.001) and were associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to stroke/SE (warfarin: HR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.80-2.64, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.12-1.88, P = 0.006; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.14-1.71, P = 0.001). Also, the OACs were associated with significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to MB-related conditions compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.59-1.95, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.23-1.68, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.71-2.09, P < 0.001). Compared with apixaban, warfarin ($3,577 vs. $3,183, P < 0.001); dabigatran ($3,217 vs. $3,060, P < 0.001); and rivaroxaban ($3,878 vs. $3,180, P < 0.001) had significantly higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month. Patients initiating the OACs had significantly higher MB-related medical costs compared with apixaban: warfarin ($472 vs. $269; P < 0.001); dabigatran ($364 vs. $245, P < 0.001); and rivaroxaban ($493 vs. $270, P < 0.001). Warfarin was also associated with higher stroke/SE-related medical costs compared with apixaban ($124 vs. $62, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that among elderly NVAF patients in the Medicare population, apixaban was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related hospitalizations compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Accordingly, apixaban showed significantly lower all-cause health care costs and MB-related medical costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Amin is an employee of the University of California, Irvine, and was a paid consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. He has served as a consultant and/or speaker for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Keshishian and Zhang are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, and Liu are employees of Pfizer, with ownership of stocks in Pfizer. Le, Rosenblatt, Nadkarni, and Vo are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. Rosenblatt and Vo have ownership of stocks in Bristol Myers Squibb. Baser has no conflicts to disclose.

Economic Outcomes in Patients with Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Enzalutamide or Abiraterone Acetate Plus Prednisone.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among US men and accounts for considerable healthcare expenditures. We evaluated economic outcomes in men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on 3174 men (18 years or older) utilizing the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2018. Men with mCRPC were included if they had at least one pharmacy claim for enzalutamide or abiraterone (first claim date = index date) following surgical or medical castration, had no chemotherapy treatment within 12 months prior to the index date, and had continuous VHA enrollment for at least 12 months pre- and post-index date. Men were followed until death, disenrollment, or end of study and were 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM). All-cause and PC-related resource use and costs per patient per month (PPPM) in the 12 months post index were compared between matched cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 1229 men with mCRPC prescribed enzalutamide and 1945 prescribed abiraterone with mean ages of 74 and 73 years, respectively. After PSM, each cohort had 1160 patients. The enzalutamide cohort had fewer all-cause (2.51 vs 2.86; p < 0.0001) and PC-related outpatient visits (0.86 vs 1.03; p < 0.0001), with corresponding lower all-cause ($2588 vs $3115; p < 0.0001) and PC-related ($1356 vs $1775; p < 0.0001) PPPM outpatient costs compared with the abiraterone cohort. All-cause total costs (medical and pharmacy) PPPM ($8085 vs $9092; p = 0.0002) and PC-related total costs PPPM ($6321 vs $7280; p < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the enzalutamide cohort compared with the abiraterone cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide-treated men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC had significantly lower resource utilization and healthcare costs compared with abiraterone-treated men.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the second leading cause of death among men with cancer in the USA. Healthcare costs associated with PC, including hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and medications prescribed to treat adverse effects, depend on the severity of the disease and intensity of treatment, but are generally very high. Enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate with prednisone (abiraterone) are both approved treatments for men with PC that does not respond to treatments that reduce the male hormone testosterone, known as castration-resistant PC (CRPC). These drugs are associated with varying treatment duration and different adverse effects, and therefore could result in differences in the use of healthcare resources and overall cost of treatment. Here we evaluated the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), which was calculated as the average number of healthcare encounters, including inpatient stays, outpatient visits, and pharmacy visits, and length of inpatient stays, and treatment costs associated with use of enzalutamide or abiraterone by men with metastatic CRPC (mCRPC), who had not received prior chemotherapy in the Veterans Health Administration. We found that men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC treated with enzalutamide used less healthcare resources and incurred lower total healthcare costs than men treated with abiraterone. On average, all-cause total healthcare costs were $1007 per patient per month lower and PC-related total healthcare costs were $959 per patient per month lower for patients treated with enzalutamide than those treated with abiraterone. These results support the hypothesis that the long-term HCRU and costs of enzalutamide may be lower compared with abiraterone.

Comparison of inpatient admission rates of patients treated with apixaban vs. warfarin for venous thromboembolism in the emergency department.

Objectives: This study evaluated inpatient admission status, hospitalization length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, and readmissions of patients who were diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and treated with apixaban or warfarin in the emergency department (ED).Methods: Patients (≥18 years) with an ED visit with a primary discharge diagnosis code of VTE were identified from the Premier Hospital database (8/1/2014-5/31/2018). Patients who received apixaban or warfarin during the ED visit were selected and grouped into two treatment cohorts. Outcomes of ED disposition (discharged or admitted to the inpatient setting), hospital LOS, hospital cost of index event, and rate of 1-month readmissions were compared for the study cohorts.Results: Of the overall study population, 30.5% (n = 12,174; mean age: 59.7 years) received apixaban and 69.5% (n = 27,767; mean age: 59.3 years) received warfarin for VTE in the ED. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, the regression analysis showed that apixaban was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of admission to the inpatient setting vs. warfarin (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.12, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.12 to 0.13; p < 0.001). Correspondingly, mean index hospital LOS was 1.42 days shorter (95% CI: -1.47 to -1.36; p < 0.001) and mean index event hospital cost per patient was significantly lower by $4,276 ($3,732 [95% CI: $3,565 to $3,907] vs. $8,008 [95% CI: $7,676 to $8,355]; p < 0.001). Also, the likelihood of all-cause 1-month readmission was significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs. warfarin (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.92; p < 0.001).Conclusions: In the real-world setting, VTE patients with an ED visit who were treated with apixaban vs. warfarin had a lower likelihood of being admitted to the inpatient setting, which was reflected in shorter average LOS and lower average index event cost. Additionally, the risk of 1-month readmission was also lower for patients treated with apixaban vs. warfarin.

Clinical outcomes and treatment patterns among Medicare patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) have increased risk of adverse outcomes. This study evaluated treatment with oral anticoagulants and outcomes in elderly NVAF patients with CKD. METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study of US Medicare fee-for-service patients aged ≥66 years with comorbid CKD (advanced: Stage 4 and higher; less advanced: Stages 1-3) and a new NVAF diagnoses from 2011-2013. All-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, and myocardial infarction rates were estimated for 1 year post-NVAF diagnosis. Associations between CKD stage and outcomes were evaluated with multivariate-adjusted Cox regression. We assessed oral anticoagulant (OAC) receipt within 90 days post-NVAF diagnosis and associations between OAC receipt and outcomes. RESULTS: There were 198,380 eligible patients (79,681 with advanced CKD). After adjustment for age, gender, and comorbidities, advanced CKD was associated with increased mortality (Stage 5 HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.42-1.52), MI (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.33-1.64), stroke (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.11-1.37) and major bleed (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.36-1.53) risks. Among Medicare Part D enrollees who survived ≥90 days post-NVAF diagnosis, 65-71% received no OACs in the first 90 days. Those receiving warfarin (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.71-0.75) or DOACs (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.49-0.56) within the first 90 days had reduced mortality in the period 90 days to 1 year following NVAF diagnosis compared to those without. CONCLUSION: Elderly NVAF patients with advanced CKD (Stage 4 or higher) had higher mortality risks and serious clinical outcomes than those with less advanced CKD (Stage 1-3). OAC use was low across all CKD stages, but was associated with a lower mortality risk than no OAC use in the first year post-NVAF diagnosis.

Safety, effectiveness, and health care cost comparisons among elderly patients with venous thromboembolism prescribed warfarin or apixaban in the United States Medicare population.

Objective: To compare safety, effectiveness, and healthcare costs of major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and all-cause hospitalization among elderly Medicare VTE patients prescribed warfarin vs apixaban.Methods: Using 100% Medicare data, elderly patients prescribed apixaban or warfarin within 30 days after a VTE encounter were identified. Patients had continuous health plan enrollment and no parenteral or oral anticoagulant use ≤6 months preceding the VTE encounter. Cohorts were balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the risk of MB, CRNM bleeding, recurrent VTE, and all-cause hospitalization. Generalized linear and two-part models were used to estimate MB-, recurrent VTE-, and all-cause related costs (per patient per month [PPPM]).Results: In the pre-matched cohort, 25,284 (66.9%) patients were prescribed warfarin and 12,515 (33.1%) apixaban. After 1:1 PSM, 11,363 matched pairs of apixaban-warfarin patients were included for a mean follow-up of 4.0 and 4.4 months, respectively. Matched cohorts had a mean age of 78 years and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2.9. Warfarin was associated with a higher risk of MB (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-1.57) and CRNM bleeding (HR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.19-1.43) vs apixaban. The risks of recurrent VTE (HR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.70-1.33) and all-cause hospitalization (HR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.99-1.12) were similar among warfarin and apixaban patients. Warfarin patients had higher MB-related ($147 vs $75; p = .003) and all-cause costs PPPM ($3,267 vs $3,033; p < .001), but similar recurrent VTE-related medical costs PPPM ($30 vs $36; p = .516) vs apixaban patients.Conclusions: Warfarin was associated with significantly higher risk of MB and CRNM bleeding as well as higher MB-related and all-cause costs vs apixaban patients. Recurrent VTE risk and costs were similar among warfarin and apixaban patients.

Continuation with apixaban treatment is associated with lower risk for hospitalization and medical costs among elderly patients.

Objective: To compare the risk of hospitalization and costs associated with major bleeding (MB) or stroke/systemic embolism (SE) among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who initiated apixaban then switched to another oral anticoagulant (OAC) vs. those who continued with apixaban treatment. Methods: NVAF patients (≥65 years) initiating apixaban were identified from the Humana database (1 January 2013-30 September 2017) and grouped into switcher and continuer cohorts. For switchers, the earliest switch from apixaban to another OAC was defined as the index event/date. A random date during apixaban treatment was selected as the index date for continuers. Patients were followed from index date to health plan disenrollment or 31 December 2017, whichever was earlier. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine the association of switchers vs. continuers with risk of MB-related or stroke/SE-related hospitalization and healthcare costs during follow-up. Results: Of 7858 elderly NVAF patients included in the study, 14% (N = 1110; mean age: 78 years) were switchers; 86% (N = 6748; mean age: 79 years) were continuers. Apixaban switchers vs. continuers had significantly greater risk of MB-related hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.52-2.64; p < .001) during follow-up; risk of stroke/SE hospitalization did not differ significantly (HR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.89-2.06, p = .154). MB- and stroke/SE-related medical costs were higher for switchers vs. continuers, although total all-cause healthcare costs were similar. Conclusion: Elderly patients with NVAF in the US who continued with apixaban treatment had a lower risk of MB-related hospitalization and lower MB- and stroke/SE-related medical costs compared to patients who switched to another OAC.

Comparisons between Oral Anticoagulants among Older Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Older adult patients are underrepresented in clinical trials comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin. This subgroup analysis of the ARISTOPHANES study used multiple data sources to compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among very old patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) prescribed NOACs or warfarin. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and three US commercial claims databases. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 88 582 very old (aged ≥80 y) NVAF patients newly initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. MEASUREMENTS: In each database, six 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) cohorts were created for each drug comparison. Patient cohorts were pooled from all four databases after PSM. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of stroke/SE and MB. RESULTS: The patients in the six matched cohorts had a mean follow-up time of 7 to 9 months. Compared with warfarin, apixaban (HR = .58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .49-.69), dabigatran (HR = .77; 95% CI = .60-.99), and rivaroxaban (HR = .74; 95% CI = .65-.85) were associated with lower risks of stroke/SE. For MB, apixaban (HR = .60; 95% CI = .54-.67) was associated with a lower risk; dabigatran (HR = .92; 95% CI = .78-1.07) was associated with a similar risk, and rivaroxaban (HR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.07-1.24) was associated with a higher risk compared with warfarin. Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE and MB compared with dabigatran (stroke/SE: HR = .65; 95% CI = .47-.89; MB: HR = .60; 95% CI = .49-.73) and rivaroxaban (stroke/SE: HR = .72; 95% CI = .59-.86; MB: HR = .50; 95% CI = .45-.55). Dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of MB (HR = .77; 95% CI = .67-.90) compared with rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Among very old NVAF patients, NOACs were associated with lower rates of stroke/SE and varying rates of MB compared with warfarin. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1662-1671, 2019.

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in older adults with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as efficacious and safe as warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients; limited evidence is available regarding NVAF patients with heart failure (HF). US Medicare enrollees with NVAF and HF initiating DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) or warfarin were selected. Propensity score matching and Cox models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) comparing DOACs versus warfarin and DOACs versus DOACs. We identified 10,570 apixaban-warfarin, 4,297 dabigatran-warfarin, 15,712 rivaroxaban-warfarin, 4,263 apixaban-dabigatran, 10,477 apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 4,297 dabigatran-rivaroxaban matched pairs. Compared to warfarin, apixaban had lower rates of stroke/SE (hazard ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval = 0.48-0.85), MB (hazard ratio = 0.66, 0.58-0.76), and MACE (hazard ratio = 0.73,0.67-0.79); dabigatran and rivaroxaban had lower rates of MACE (hazard ratio = 0.87,0.77-0.99; hazard ratio = 0.84, 0.79-0.89, respectively). Rivaroxaban had a lower stroke/SE rate (hazard ratio = 0.65, 0.52-0.81) and higher MB rate (hazard ratio = 1.18, 1.08-1.30) versus warfarin. Compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban had lower MB (hazard ratio = 0.71, 0.57-0.89; hazard ratio = 0.55, 0.49-0.63) and MACE rates (hazard ratio = 0.80, 0.69-0.93; hazard ratio = 0.86, 0.79-0.94), respectively. All DOACs had lower MACE rates versus warfarin; differences were observed in stroke/SE and MB. Our findings provide insights about OAC therapy among NVAF patients with HF.

Comparative clinical outcomes between direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin among elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the CMS medicare population.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence increases with age; > 80% of US adults with AF are aged ≥ 65 years. Compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), net clinical outcome (NCO), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among elderly non-valvular AF (NVAF) Medicare patients prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) VS warfarin. NVAF patients aged ≥ 65 years who initiated DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban) or warfarin were selected from 01JAN2013-31DEC2015 in CMS Medicare data. Propensity score matching was used to balance DOAC and warfarin cohorts. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the risk of stroke/SE, MB, NCO, and MACE. 37,525 apixaban-warfarin, 18,131 dabigatran-warfarin, and 55,359 rivaroxaban-warfarin pairs were included. Compared to warfarin, apixaban (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.59-0.81) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) had lower risk of stroke/SE, and dabigatran (HR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.72-1.07) had similar risk of stroke/SE. Apixaban (MB: HR: 0.61; 95% CI 0.57-0.67; NCO: HR: 0.64; 95% CI 0.60-0.69) and dabigatran (MB: HR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.71-0.89; NCO: HR: 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.93) had lower risk of MB and NCO, and rivaroxaban had higher risk of MB (HR: 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14) and similar risk of NCO (HR: 1.04; 95% CI 0.99-1.09). Compared to warfarin, apixaban had a lower risk for stroke/SE, MB, and NCO; dabigatran had a lower risk of MB and NCO; and rivaroxaban had a lower risk of stroke/SE but higher risk of MB. All DOACs had lower risk of MACE compared to warfarin.

Real-world misuse, abuse, and dependence of abuse-deterrent versus non-abuse-deterrent extended-release morphine in Medicaid non-cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Opioids with abuse-deterrent properties may reduce widespread abuse, misuse, and diversion of these products. This study aimed to quantify misuse, abuse, dependence, and health resource use of extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride (ER-MSN; EMBEDA®), compared with non-abuse-deterrent extended-release morphine (ERM) products in Medicaid non-cancer patients. METHODS: Administrative medical and pharmacy claims data were analyzed for 10 Medicaid states from 1 January 2015, to 30 June 2016. Patients were included if they received a prescription for ER-MSN or any oral, non-abuse-deterrent ERM. Index date was the date of first prescription for an ER-MSN or ERM. Abuse/dependence, non-fatal overdose, emergency department (ED) visits, and ED/inpatient readmissions were determined for each participant. An overall measure of misuse and abuse was also calculated. To account for differences in follow-up, all counts are expressed per 100 patient-years. RESULTS: There were 4,857 patients who received ER-MSN and 10,357 who received an ERM. The average age in the two cohorts was approximately 45 years old. From pre-index to follow-up, the number of patients per 100 patient-years with a diagnosis code indicating abuse or dependence increased by 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 0.97) in the ER-MSN cohort and 2.23 (95% CI: 2.14, 2.32) in the ERM cohort. The number of patients per 100 patient-years with an opioid-related non-fatal overdose increased by 0.05 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.06) in the ER-MSN cohort compared with 0.11 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.13) in the ERM cohort. The opioid abuse overall composite score increased by 1.36 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.48) in the post-index period in the ER-MSN cohort compared to 3.21 (95% CI: 3.10, 3.32) in the ERM cohort. CONCLUSION: Misuse, abuse, and dependence events were numerically lower in patients receiving ER-MSN compared with those receiving ERM products.

Incremental health care resource utilization and expenditures associated with autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease.

PURPOSE: Incremental health care resource utilization and expenditures associated with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) were estimated. METHODS: Study data were from a large administrative claims database. Individuals aged 18 years or older enrolled in tracked health plans for 12 months from April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012, and with an International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code for "polycystic kidney, autosomal dominant" (753.13) or for "polycystic kidney, unspecified type" (753.12) were identified as having ADPKD, and linked one-to-one with individuals without ADPKD based on age and gender. Zero-inflated negative binomial models estimated incremental health care resource utilization and expenditures, adjusting for risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 3,844 individuals with ADPKD who satisfied selection criteria were linked one-to-one with 3,844 individuals without ADPKD. Multivariate, regression models adjusting for risk factors revealed incremental mean (standard error) resource use associated with ADPKD of 0.68 (0.090) hospital days, equal to 68 additional hospital days per 100 ADPKD patients, and 6.9 (0.28) outpatient visits, equal to 690 additional visits per 100 ADPKD patients. Mean (standard error) incremental total expenditures associated with ADPKD were US$8,639 ($470). Mean incremental expenditures were largest for outpatient expenditures at US$4,918 ($198), followed by mean incremental hospital expenditures of US$2,603 ($263), and mean incremental medication expenditures of US$1,589 ($77). Based on sub-group analysis, mean incremental total expenditures were US$2,944 ($417) among ADPKD patients without end-stage renal disease and US$38,962 ($6,181) for those with end-stage renal disease. CONCLUSION: ADPKD was associated with considerable incremental health care resource utilization and expenditures. Significant illness burden was found even before patients reached end-stage renal disease.

Hospital Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With Warfarin Versus Apixaban Treatment Among Patients Hospitalized for Venous Thromboembolism in the United States.

A real-world US database analysis was conducted to evaluate the hospital resource utilization and costs of patients hospitalized for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treated with warfarin versus apixaban. Additionally, 1-month readmissions were evaluated. Of 28 612 patients with VTE identified from the Premier Hospital database (August 2014-May 2016), 91% (N = 26 088) received warfarin and 9% (N = 2524) received apixaban. Outcomes were assessed after controlling for key patient/hospital characteristics. For index hospitalizations, the average length of stay (LOS) was longer (3.8 vs 3.1 days, P < .001; difference: 0.7 days) and mean hospitalization cost higher (US$3224 vs US$2,740, P < .001; difference: US$484) for warfarin versus apixaban-treated patients. During the 1-month follow-up period, warfarin treatment was associated with a greater risk of all-cause readmission (odds ratio [OR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.48, P = .003), major bleeding (MB)-related readmission (OR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.03-4.27, P = .04), and any bleeding-related readmission (OR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.09-2.56, P = .02) versus apixaban. The results of this real-world analysis show that compared to warfarin, apixaban treatment was associated with shorter index hospital stays, lower index hospitalization costs, and reduced risk of MB-related readmissions among hospitalized patients with VTE.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Health Care Costs of Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients in the U.S. Department of Defense Population.

BACKGROUND: The ARISTOTLE trial demonstrated that apixaban had significantly lower rates of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding than warfarin; however, no direct clinical trials between apixaban and other direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are available. Few real-world studies comparing the effectiveness and safety between DOACs have been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness, safety, and health care costs among oral anticoagulants (OACs) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) population. METHODS: Adult NVAF patients initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from U.S. DoD data from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. The first OAC claim date was designated as the index date. Patients initiating another OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding for each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE-related and major bleeding-related medical costs. RESULTS: Of the 41,001 eligible patients, 7,607 warfarin-apixaban, 4,129 dabigatran-apixaban, and 11,284 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Warfarin (HR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.30-2.59; P < 0.001) and rivar-oxaban (HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.08-1.98; P = 0.015) were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Dabigatran (HR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.68-2.03; P = 0.573) was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Warfarin (HR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.24-1.89; P < 0.001), dabigatran (HR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.27-2.43; P < 0.001), and rivaroxaban (HR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.34-1.89; P < 0.001) were associated with higher risks of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Compared with apixaban, patients prescribed warfarin incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($2,498 vs. $2,277; P = 0.148) and significantly higher stroke/SE-related ($118 vs. $46; P = 0.012) and major bleeding-related ($166 vs. $76; P = 0.003) medical costs. Dabigatran patients incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care PPPM costs ($2,372 vs. $2,143; P = 0.150) and stroke/SE-related medical costs ($61 vs. $32; P = 0.240) but significantly higher major bleeding-related costs ($114 vs. $58; P = 0.025). Rivaroxaban patients incurred significantly higher all-cause total health care costs ($2,546 vs. $2,200; P < 0.001) and major bleeding-related medical costs PPPM ($137 vs. $69; P < 0.001) but numerically higher stroke/SE-related medical costs PPPM ($58 vs. $38; P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Among NVAF patients in the U.S. DoD population, warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared with apixaban. Dabigatran use was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE and a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Warfarin and dabigatran incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which were involved in the study design, as well as in the writing and revision of the manuscript. Keshishian and Zhang are paid employees of STATinMED Research, which was paid by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Gupta, Rosenblatt, Hede, and Nadkarni are paid employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, Liu, and Shank are paid employees of Pfizer.