The Economic Burden of Thromboembolic Events Among Patients with Immune-Mediated Diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Thromboembolic events (TEs) are associated with considerable costs. However, there is a paucity of evidence quantifying the economic burden associated with TEs among patients with immune-mediated diseases (IMDs). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the IBM MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Claims databases (2014-2018). Commercially insured adults with IMDs were classified into two cohorts based on diagnosis of TEs (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction). Patients in the TE cohort were matched on type of IMD, age, sex, and year of diagnosis to patients in the no TE cohort. In the TE cohort, the index date was the date of first TE following first IMD diagnosis. In the no TE cohort, the index date was assigned so the duration from first IMD diagnosis to index date matched the duration for the corresponding patient in the TE cohort. All-cause total healthcare costs were compared between cohorts in the 30-day and 1-year periods following the index date (inclusive). Unadjusted comparisons were conducted using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Adjusted results were estimated using generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimator. RESULTS: Overall, 9681 matched patients were included in each cohort (mean age 61.1 years; 63.7% female). The TE cohort had higher proportions of comorbidities than the no TE cohort (Charlson Comorbidity Index [1.5 vs. 0.9]; p < 0.0001). Adjusted all-cause total healthcare costs were significantly greater in the TE cohort versus no TE cohort in the 30-day and 1-year periods following the index date (cost difference: 30-day, $17,574; 1-year, $36,459; both p < 0.0001) and were driven by inpatient costs (cost difference: 30-day, $14,864; 1-year, $23,360; both p < 0.0001). TE-related healthcare costs were $15,955 and $20,239 in the 30-day and 1-year periods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among patients with IMDs, TEs are associated with substantial economic burden within 30-days and 1-year following the event.

Risk of Thromboembolic Events and Associated Healthcare Costs in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with greater risk of thromboembolic events (TEs) due to the link between systemic inflammation and hypercoagulability. This study assessed the rates of TEs among patients with IBD versus patients without immune-mediated disease (IMD) and the cost of TEs among patients with IBD in the United States. METHODS: This study used the IBM MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (2014-2018). To assess the incremental rates of TEs (deep vein thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], ischemic stroke [IS], myocardial infarction [MI]), patients with IBD were matched to patients without IMD. Unadjusted and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of TEs were used to compare cohorts. To assess the cost of TEs, patients with IBD with TEs were matched to patients with IBD without TEs. Costs were assessed 30 days and 1 year post index date. RESULTS: There were 34,687 matched pairs included in the rates of TE analyses. Compared to patients without IMD, patients with IBD had greater rates of DVT (adjusted IRR [95% confidence interval] 2.44 [2.00, 2.99]; p < 0.01) and PE (1.90 [1.42, 2.54]; p < 0.01). Increased rates were not observed for IS and MI. There were 1885 matched pairs included in the cost of TE analyses. Patients with IBD with TEs incurred greater healthcare costs over 30 days and 1 year versus patients without TEs (adjusted total cost difference: 30 days $20,784; 1 year $44,630; p < 0.01 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD experienced greater rates of DVT and PE compared to patients without IMD; this elevated risk was associated with a substantial economic burden.

Examining the heterogeneity of treatment patterns in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among children and adolescents in the Texas Medicaid population: modeling suboptimal treatment response.

Objectives: To examine suboptimal responses (SR) in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among pediatric patients in the Texas Medicaid program receiving osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) or lisdexamfetamine (LDX) and apply an SR prediction model to identify patients most likely to experience an SR to either OROS-MPH or LDX therapies. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Texas Medicaid claims data of ADHD children and adolescents (6-17 years of age) initiating OROS-MPH or LDX. Primary SR endpoints were drug discontinuation, switching, and augmentation 12-months post-ADHD drug initiation. Logistic regression models were developed to predict SR to OROS-MPH and LDX in 1:1 matched groups of children and adolescent cohorts. Results: A total of 3,633 children and 1,611 adolescents were matched for each cohort. SR was observed among more children (76.4% vs 72.3%; p < 0.001) and adolescents (82.7% vs 78.2%; p = 0.002) initiating OROS-MPH compared to LDX. Patient sub-groups with the highest predicted risk of OROS-MPH SR experienced significantly lower observed SR rates (p < 0.05) when initiating LDX (children: 80.6% for OROS-MPH vs 75.8% for LDX; OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60-0.94; adolescents: 87.2% for OROS-MPH vs 80.6% for LDX; OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.41-0.89). For patients with highest predicted SR rates to LDX, observed SR rates were not significantly different between patients initiating LDX or OROS-MPH. Conclusions: This study demonstrated how a personalized medicine approach using administrative claims data can be used to identify sub-groups of child and adolescent ADHD patients with different risks for suboptimal response with OROS-MPH or LDX in a Medicaid population.

A conceptual framework for a long-term economic model for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Models incorporating long-term outcomes (LTOs) are not available to assess the health economic impact of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). OBJECTIVE: Develop a conceptual modelling framework capable of assessing long-term economic impact of ADHD therapies. METHODS: Literature was reviewed; a conceptual structure for the long-term model was outlined with attention to disease characteristics and potential impact of treatment strategies. RESULTS: The proposed model has four layers: i) multi-state short-term framework to differentiate between ADHD treatments; ii) multiple states being merged into three core health states associated with LTOs; iii) series of sub-models in which particular LTOs are depicted; iv) outcomes collected to be either used directly for economic analyses or translated into other relevant measures. CONCLUSIONS: This conceptual model provides a framework to assess relationships between short- and long-term outcomes of the disease and its treatment, and to estimate the economic impact of ADHD treatments throughout the course of the disease.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate.

BACKGROUND: An economic analysis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) evaluated the cost effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) compared with atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who have had an inadequate response to methylphenidate. METHODS: A 1-year decision-analytic model was constructed, with the health outcomes "response", "nonresponse", and "unable to tolerate". Clinical data were taken from a head-to-head, randomized controlled trial in inadequate responders to methylphenidate. Response to treatment was defined as a score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement subscale. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation rates owing to adverse events. Utility weights were identified via a systematic literature review. Healthcare resource use estimates were obtained via a survey of clinicians. Daily drug costs were derived from British National Formulary 2012 costs and mean doses reported in the trial. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed. RESULTS: The comparison of LDX with atomoxetine resulted in an estimate of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1802 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The result was robust in a wide range of sensitivity analyses; results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs and efficacy. In the PSA, assuming a maximum willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY, LDX versus atomoxetine had an 86 % probability of being cost effective. In 38 % of PSA runs, LDX was more effective and less costly than atomoxetine. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the UK NHS, LDX provides a cost-effective treatment option for children and adolescents who are inadequate responders to methylphenidate.

The impact of ADHD on the health and well-being of ADHD children and their siblings.

Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been associated with reduced health and well-being of patients and their families. The authors undertook a large UK survey-based observational study of the burden associated with childhood ADHD. The impact of ADHD on both the patient (N = 476) and their siblings (N = 337) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and happiness was quantified using multiple standard measures [e.g. child health utility-9D (CHU-9D), EuroQol-5D-Youth]. In the analysis, careful statistical adjustments were made to ensure a like-for-like comparison of ADHD families with two different control groups. We controlled for carers' ADHD symptoms, their employment and relationship status and siblings' ADHD symptoms. ADHD was associated with a significant deficit in the patient's HRQoL (with a CHU-9D score of around 6 % lower). Children with ADHD also have less sleep and were less happy with their family and their lives overall. No consistent decrement to the HRQoL of the siblings was identified across the models, except that related to their own conduct problems. The siblings do, however, report lower happiness with life overall and with their family, even when controlling for the siblings own ADHD symptoms. We also find evidence of elevated bullying between siblings in families with a child with ADHD. Overall, the current results suggest that the reduction in quality of life caused by ADHD is experienced both by the child with ADHD and their siblings.

Economic impact of childhood/adolescent ADHD in a European setting: the Netherlands as a reference case.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly prevalent psychiatric disorder in children/adolescents. This study reviews available European-based studies of ADHD-related costs and applies the findings to the Netherlands to estimate annual national costs for children/adolescents from a societal perspective. A systematic literature search was conducted for primary studies in Europe, published January 1, 1990 through April 23, 2013. Per-person cost estimates were converted to 2012 Euros and used to estimate annual national ADHD-related costs based on the Dutch 2011 census, ADHD prevalence rates, family composition, and employment rates. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The average total ADHD-related costs ranged from €9,860 to 14,483 per patient and annual national costs were between €1,041 and €1,529 million (M). The largest cost category was education (€648 M), representing 62 and 42 % of the low- and high-value overall national estimates, respectively. By comparison, ADHD patient healthcare costs ranged between €84 M (8 %) and €377 M (25 %), and social services costs were €4.3 M (0.3-0.4 %). While the majority of the costs were incurred by ADHD patients themselves, €161 M (11-15 %) was healthcare costs to family members that were attributable to having an ADHD child/adolescent. In addition, productivity losses of family members were €143-€339 M (14-22 %). Despite uncertainties because of the small number of studies identified and the wide range in the national cost estimates, our results suggest that ADHD imposes a significant economic burden on multiple public sectors in Europe. The limited number of European-based studies examining the economic burden of ADHD highlights the need for more research in this area.

Treatment persistence in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a retrospective analysis of patients initiated on lisdexamfetamine vs other medications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment persistence in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) of patients initiated on lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other ADHD medications. METHODS: A large US administrative claims database was used to select ADHD patients who initiated an ADHD medication (index treatment) during/after 2007. Patients were classified, based on age and previous treatment status, as treatment-naïve or previously treated children and adolescents (6-17 years) and treatment-naïve or previously treated adults (18 years and older). Furthermore, patients were classified into seven mutually exclusive treatment groups, based on their index treatment: LDX, atomoxetine (ATX), osmotic-release methylphenidate hydrochloride long-acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate short-acting (MPH SA) and long-acting (MPH LA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine short acting (AMPH SA) and long-acting (AMPH LA). Treatment persistence, analyzed through discontinuation (interruption of the index treatment for ≥30 consecutive days), was compared between treatment groups using multivariate Cox proportional hazards. Patients were followed until first treatment discontinuation or up to 12 months after the initiation of the index treatment, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Among children and adolescents, LDX patients had a significantly lower discontinuation rate compared to other treatment groups (range hazard ratios [HRs]; 1.04-2.26; all p < 0.05), except when compared to treatment-naïve patients on ATX and OROS MPH, where no statistically significant differences were found and where LDX had a higher risk of discontinuation, respectively. Among adults, LDX patients had a significantly lower discontinuation rate compared to patients in other treatment groups (range HR; 1.14-1.86; all p < 0.05), except for the comparison with AMPH LA patients, where differences were not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: This study did not control for ADHD severity. CONCLUSION: LDX-treated patients were associated with higher persistence compared to patients initiated on other ADHD medications, except for the comparisons with OROS MPH and ATX treated patients in treatment-naïve children and adolescents and AMPH LA-treated patients in adults.

Comparison of therapy augmentation and deviation rates from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen between LDX and commonly prescribed long-acting stimulants for the treatment of ADHD in youth and adults.

OBJECTIVE: To compare therapy augmentation and deviation rates from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) patients initiated on lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other once-daily Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved stimulants. METHODS: ADHD patients initiated on a long-acting ADHD stimulant medication (index medication) in/after 2007 were selected from a large U.S. administrative claims database. Patients were required to be persistent for ≥90 days and continuously enrolled in their healthcare plan for ≥12 months following treatment initiation date. Based on age and previous treatment status, patients were classified into treatment-naïve children and adolescents (6-17 years old), previously treated children and adolescents, treatment-naïve adults (≥18 years old), and previously treated adults. Furthermore, patients were classified into four mutually exclusive treatment groups, based on index medication: lisdexamfetamine (LDX), osmotic release methylphenidate hydrochloride long-acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate long-acting (MPH LA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine long-acting (AMPH LA). The average daily consumption was measured as the quantity of index medication supplied in the 12-month study period divided by the total number of days of supply. Therapy augmentation was defined as the use of another ADHD medication concomitantly with the index medication for ≥28 consecutive days. Therapy augmentation and deviation rates from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen were compared between treatment groups using multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Compared to the other treatment groups, LDX patients were less likely to augment with another ADHD medication (range odds ratios [OR]; 1.28-3.30) and to deviate from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen (range OR; 1.73-4.55), except for previously treated adult patients, where therapy augmentation differences were not statistically significant when compared to OROS MPH and MPH LA patients. LIMITATION: This study did not control for ADHD severity. CONCLUSION: Overall, compared to LDX-treated patients, patients initiated on other ADHD medications were equally or more likely to have a therapy augmentation and more likely to deviate from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen.

The development of a patient-reported outcome measure for assessing nighttime symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is important for monitoring and managing the disease and for evaluating outcomes of interventions. COPD patients experience symptoms during the day and night, and symptoms experienced at night often disturb sleep. The aim of this paper is to describe methods used to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for evaluating nighttime symptoms of COPD, and to document evidence for the content validity of the instrument. METHODS: Literature review and clinician interviews were conducted to inform discussion guides to explore patients' nighttime COPD symptom experience. Data from focus groups with COPD patients was used to develop a conceptual framework and the content of a new PRO instrument. Patient understanding of the new instrument was assessed via cognitive interviews with COPD patients. RESULTS: The literature review confirmed that there is no instrument with evidence of content validity currently available to assess nighttime symptoms of COPD. Additionally, the literature review and clinician interviews suggested the need to understand patients' experience of specific symptoms in order to evaluate nighttime symptoms of COPD. Analyses of patient focus group data (N = 27) supported saturation of concepts and aided in development of a conceptual framework. Items were generated using patients' terminology to collect data on concepts in the framework including the occurrence and severity of COPD symptoms, use of rescue medication at night, and nocturnal awakening. Response options were chosen to reflect concepts that were salient to patients. Subsequent cognitive interviewing with ten COPD patients demonstrated that the items, response options, recall period, and instructions were understandable, relevant, and interpreted as intended. CONCLUSIONS: A new PRO instrument, the Nighttime Symptoms of COPD Instrument (NiSCI), was developed with documented evidence of content validity. The NiSCI is ready for empirical testing, including item reduction and evaluation of psychometric properties.

Adult ADHD patient experiences of impairment, service provision and clinical management in England: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence of the unmet needs and experiences of adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the published scientific literature. This study aimed to explore the experiences of adults in England with ADHD regarding access to diagnostic and treatment services, ADHD-related impairment and to compare experiences between patients diagnosed during adulthood and childhood. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 30 adults with ADHD were recruited through an ADHD charity (n = 17) and two hospital outpatient clinics for adults with ADHD in England (n = 13). Half of the participants were diagnosed with ADHD during childhood or adolescence and the remainder during adulthood. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and data was analysed using a thematic approach based on Grounded Theory principles. RESULTS: Analysis revealed five core themes: 'An uphill struggle': the challenge of accessing services, 'Accumulated Psychosocial Burden and the Impact of ADHD', 'Weighing up Costs vs. Benefits of ADHD Pharmacological Treatment', 'Value of Non-pharmacological Treatment' and 'Barriers to Treatment Adherence'. Accessing services and the challenges associated with securing a definitive diagnosis of ADHD in adulthood was an 'uphill struggle', often due to sceptical and negative attitudes towards ADHD by healthcare professionals. ADHD-related impairment had an overwhelmingly chaotic impact on every aspect of patients' lives and many felt ill equipped to cope. A persistent sense of failure and missed potential from living with the impact of ADHD impairment had led to an accumulated psychosocial burden, especially among those diagnosed from late adolescence onwards. In contrast, positive adjustment was facilitated by a younger age at diagnosis. Although medication was perceived as necessary in alleviating impairment, many felt strongly that by itself, it was inadequate. Additional support in the form of psychological therapies or psycho-education was strongly desired. However, few patients had access to non-pharmacological treatment. In some, medication use was often inadequately monitored with little or no follow-up by healthcare professionals, leading to poor adherence and a sense of abandonment from the healthcare system. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the unmet needs of adults with ADHD are substantial and that there is a wide gap between policy and current practice in England.

Comparing treatment adherence of lisdexamfetamine and other medications for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess treatment adherence in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients initiated on Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other FDA-approved stimulants and non-stimulant medications. METHODS: ADHD patients initiated on an ADHD medication (index medication) were selected from a large US administrative claims database. Based on age and previous treatment status, patients were classified into treatment-naïve children and adolescents (6-17 years old), previously treated children and adolescents, treatment-naïve adults (over 18 years old), and previously treated adults. Furthermore, based on their index medication, patients were classified into seven mutually exclusive treatment groups: LDX, atomoxetine (ATX), osmotic release methylphenidate hydrochloride long acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate long acting (MPH LA) and short acting (MPH SA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine short acting (AMPH SA) and long acting (AMPH LA). Treatment adherence (proportion of days covered by the index medication ≥0.8) over a 12-month period was compared across treatment groups using multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: In children and adolescents, LDX patients were more likely to be adherent compared to patients in each of the other treatment groups, except in treatment-naïve patients where LDX patients had a similar likelihood (p = 0.6925) and were less likely (p = 0.0004) to be adherent compared to ATX and OROS MPH patients, respectively. In adults, the LDX treatment group was also more likely to be adherent compared to each of the other treatment groups, except compared to AMPH LA, where statistically insignificant differences were observed (previously treated: p = 0.6471, treatment-naïve: p = 0.0733). LIMITATIONS: ADHD severity information was not available in the database. Accordingly, this study did not control for ADHD severity. CONCLUSION: Overall, LDX-treated patients demonstrated a better treatment adherence compared to patients initiated on other ADHD medications, except for AMPH LA in adult and OROS MPH and ATX in treatment-naïve children and adolescents.

Economic impact of childhood and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent mental disorders in children in the United States and often persists into adulthood with associated symptomatology and impairments. This article comprehensively reviews studies reporting ADHD-related incremental (excess) costs for children/adolescents and adults and presents estimates of annual national incremental costs of ADHD. METHOD: A systematic search for primary United States-based studies published from January 1, 1990 through June 30, 2011 on costs of children/adolescents and adults with ADHD and their family members was conducted. Only studies in which mean annual incremental costs per individual with ADHD above non-ADHD controls were reported or could be derived were included. Per-person incremental costs were adjusted to 2010 U.S. dollars and converted to annual national incremental costs of ADHD based on 2010 U.S. Census population estimates, ADHD prevalence rates, number of household members, and employment rates by age group. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall national annual incremental costs of ADHD ranged from $143 to $266 billion (B). Most of these costs were incurred by adults ($105 B-$194 B) compared with children/adolescents ($38 B-$72 B). For adults, the largest cost category was productivity and income losses ($87 B-$138 B). For children, the largest cost categories were health care ($21 B-$44 B) and education ($15 B-$25 B). Spillover costs borne by the family members of individuals with ADHD were also substantial ($33 B-$43 B). CONCLUSION: Despite a wide range in the magnitude of the cost estimates, this study indicates that ADHD has a substantial economic impact in the United States. Implications of these findings and future directions for research are discussed.

A new measure of caregiver burden in Alzheimer's disease: the caregiver-perceived burden questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the Caregiver-Perceived Burden Questionnaire (CPBQ) and report its psychometric properties. METHODS: The CPBQ was administered to caregivers of patients with moderate-to-severe AD in a double-blind randomized trial comparing extended-release memantine to placebo (n = 676). Measurement properties were analyzed using factor analysis, classical test theory, and Rasch analysis. RESULTS: Two subscales were identified: the Caregivers' Assessment of the Patient (CAP) and the Caregivers' Assessment of Themselves (CAT). The reliability was .89 (CAP) and .83 (CAT). The CAP scores were significantly correlated (r > .3) with scores from the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). The CAT scores were significantly correlated with NPI scores. The CAT discriminated among patients by clinician-rated severity and significantly differentiated between responders and nonresponders. CONCLUSION: The CPBQ appears to be a reliable, valid, and responsive measure that enables linking caregiver's perceptions about burden and patient function in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.

Cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder that impairs the quality of life for patients and their families and is associated with considerable direct and indirect costs. Pharmacotherapies for ADHD, including stimulants and non-stimulants, are often used to treat patients with ADHD. However, the costs, effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents vary. Therefore, information regarding the cost effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments is needed to better inform payers in the allocation of limited resources. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to conduct a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pharmacotherapies for ADHD treatments and to assess the cost effectiveness of different interventions based on the existing studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pharmacotherapies for ADHD was conducted in MEDLINE, the National Health Services (NHS) Economic Evaluation database and EMBASE. For inclusion in this review, studies had to compare two or more ADHD interventions with at least one pharmacotherapy, assess both costs and outcomes, and be conducted between 1990 and 2011 in North America, Europe, Australia or New Zealand. Studies were excluded if they were not original research, were presented only as conference proceedings or abstracts or did not report costs associated with specific interventions. The study quality was assessed using the British Medical Journal (BMJ) health economics checklist. The literature search, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one author and independently checked for accuracy by a second author. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and referring to the original article. If necessary, a third reviewer was consulted. RESULTS: The initial search returned 93 citations from MEDLINE, 10 from the NHS Economic Evaluation database and 377 from EMBASE. Thirteen papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the review. Based on the BMJ checklist, all these studies were considered to be of sufficient quality to be included in the literature review, but they varied substantially in target population, methodology and effectiveness measures. Identified pharmacotherapies were cost effective compared with no treatment, placebo, behavioural therapy or community care among children and adolescents with ADHD. Studies comparing non-stimulants with stimulants and amfetamine with methylphenidate stimulants showed inconsistent findings. A limited number of studies indicated that methylphenidate Osmotic-controlled Release Oral delivery System (OROS) was cost effective compared with short-acting methylphenidate. There were no published studies on the cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in the adult ADHD population, comparing stimulants, non-stimulants or adjuvant therapy. There is limited evidence on the long-term cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Among children and adolescents with ADHD, there was consistent evidence that pharmacotherapies are cost effective compared with no treatment or behavioural therapy. Adequate data are lacking to draw conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of different pharmacological agents. More economic evaluations with standardized methods, such as effectiveness measures and cost components, are warranted. To better inform payers about the economic value of existing medications, future studies should also consider identifying subgroups that may have heterogeneous responses to different treatments, including analyses of recently approved treatments (e.g. lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine extended-release and clonidine extended-release) and expanding the time horizon to incorporate long-term outcomes.

Identifying patient subgroups who benefit most from a treatment: using administrative claims data to uncover treatment heterogeneity.

OBJECTIVES: To illustrate how claims data can be used to (1) develop outcome scores that predict response to a traditional treatment and (2) estimate the economic impact of individualized assignment to a newer treatment based on the outcome score. An example application is based on two treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX). METHODS: Adolescents with ADHD initiating OROS-MPH (n=6320) or LDX (n=6394) were selected from the MarketScan claims database. A model was developed for predicting risk of switching/augmentation with OROS-MPH using multiple baseline characteristics. The model was applied to an independent sample to stratify patients by their predicted risk and, within each stratum, risk of switching/augmentation and ADHD-related total costs were compared between OROS-MPH and LDX patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: The prediction model resulted in substantial stratification, showing risk of switching/augmentation with OROS-MPH ranging from 11.3-42.1%. In the two strata where OROS-MPH had highest risk of switching/augmentation, LDX had significantly lower risk of switching/augmentation than OROS-MPH (by 7.0-8.2%) and lower ADHD-related annual total costs (by $264-$625 per patient). LIMITATIONS: The current study has used the risk of switching/augmentation as a proxy measure for treatment efficacy to establish the prediction model. Future research using a clinical measure for ADHD symptoms is warranted to verify the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Combining multiple patient characteristics into a predicted score for treatment outcomes with a traditional treatment can help identify subgroups of patients who benefit most from a new treatment. In this analysis, ADHD patients with a high predicted score for switching/augmentation with OROS-MPH had a lower rate of switching/augmentation with LDX. Assigning OROS-MPH and LDX treatments based on the predicted scores that are heterogeneous in a patient population may help improve clinical outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of care.

Clinical and economic outcomes of multiple versus single long-acting inhalers in COPD.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs between COPD patients who used multiple long-acting inhalers versus those who used a single long-acting inhaler. METHODS: COPD patients meeting study inclusion criteria were identified in the Market Scan database (2004-2008) and were classified as being a multiple- or single-inhaler user. 11,747 multiple- and single-inhaler users were matched on baseline characteristics to balance disease severity. Patients were followed for 12 months. Incremental differences between the two groups were estimated for: number of exacerbations; time to first exacerbation; all-cause and COPD-related inpatient admissions, inpatient days, emergency room visits, urgent care visits, outpatient visits, and other medical services visits; all-cause and COPD-related healthcare costs. Multivariate regression analyses were also used to control for a number of potentially confounding factors. RESULTS: After controlling for a number of potentially confounding factors, multiple-inhaler users experienced significantly more exacerbations (0.52; p < .0001) and had a higher risk of exacerbation (HR = 1.40; p < .0001) than single-inhaler users. Multiple-inhaler users also incurred significantly more inpatient admissions (IRR = 1.15; p < .0001), inpatient days (IRR = 1.20; p < .0001), urgent care visits (IRR = 1.10; p = 0.0026), outpatient visits (IRR = 1.06; p < .0001), and other medical services visits (IRR = 1.12; p = <.001) than single-inhaler users, resulting in significantly higher all-cause health care costs ($3,319; p < .0001). Results of COPD-related resource use and costs were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for a number of potentially confounding factors, multiple-inhaler users had more exacerbations, a higher risk of exacerbation, and higher healthcare resource utilization and costs compared to single-inhaler users.

Therapy persistence and adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: multiple versus single long-acting maintenance inhalers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare persistence and adherence among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with either multiple- or single- long-acting maintenance inhalers. METHODS: Patients with ≥2 COPD medical claims and ≥2 prescriptions for a long-acting inhaler within 1 year were classified as single- or multiple-inhaler users based on their treatment regimen (MarketScan database; 2004-2008) and matched on demographics and statistically significant baseline characteristics. Persistence, analyzed via time to treatment discontinuation, and treatment adherence, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC), were compared between the two groups over a 12-month period. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in patients with poorly and well-controlled disease. RESULTS: A total of 23,494 patients were grouped into 11,747 matched pairs. After adjusting for confounding factors, multiple-inhaler users had a significantly higher discontinuation rate [Hazard ratio = 1.40, p < 0.0001] compared with single-inhaler users. Multiple-inhaler users were less likely to be adherent than single-inhaler users with an average PDC of 0.51 (SD = 0.272) vs. 0.55 (SD = 0.279), respectively (p < 0.0001). These results were consistent for the poorly- and well-controlled disease groups. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple long-acting inhaler users demonstrated lower treatment persistence and adherence rates than single long-acting inhaler users. Limitations of the study are related to the retrospective, observational design and use of claims data.

Incremental third-party costs associated with COPD exacerbations: a retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Exacerbations are a major contributor to the large burden of treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Estimates of exacerbation costs in the United States are limited. OBJECTIVE: To estimate incremental costs associated with COPD exacerbation, particularly severe exacerbation, in the United States. METHODS: COPD patients with at least one exacerbation were identified in the Thomson Reuters MarketScan administrative claims database. A COPD exacerbation was defined as patient use of oral or parenteral corticosteroids on the same day or within 7 days following a claim with a COPD diagnosis. Severe exacerbation was further defined if the exacerbation was associated with hospitalization or death. Healthcare costs and exacerbations were evaluated at quarterly intervals starting from patients' first observed claim with COPD diagnostic code in the database. Incremental costs associated with exacerbation were estimated as cost differences between quarters with exacerbation and quarters without exacerbation. RESULTS: A total of 2644,174 patient-quarters, derived from 228,978 COPD patients, were included in the analysis. The average patient was followed an average of 2.9 years. The mean total cost was $17,016 per patient-quarter with severe exacerbation, $6628 per patient-quarter with non-severe exacerbation, an average of $8726 per patient-quarters with any exacerbation compared to $4762 per patient-quarter with no exacerbation. After adjusting for patient demographics, the mean incremental total cost was $11,261 per patient-quarter with severe exacerbation, $1509 per patient-quarter for non-severe exacerbation, and $3439 per patient-quarter with any exacerbation compared with patient-quarters with no exacerbation. LIMITATIONS: The method used for defining exacerbations does not capture mild exacerbations. Additional limitations exist due to the nature of claims data. CONCLUSIONS: Exacerbations, especially severe ones, result in a significant economic burden for third-party payers. Effective management of COPD and prevention of exacerbations may lead to improved patient outcomes and reduction in total healthcare costs for long-term management of COPD.

Cost-effectiveness of memantine in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease patients receiving donepezil.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of memantine in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) receiving stable doses of donepezil were recently demonstrated in a phase III trial. The cost-effectiveness of such therapy is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A microsimulation model was developed to depict AD progression over time and associated clinical and economic outcomes. AD progression was measured in terms of decline in cognitive function, as assessed by the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB). At model entry, patients were assumed to have moderate-to-severe AD, to be on stable doses of donepezil, and to begin combination therapy with memantine, or continue to receive donepezil alone; duration of therapy was assumed to be 1 year. Drug efficacy was based on data from a phase III trial. Key assumptions of the model included: (1) efficacy of study drugs would extend to 1 year; (2) measures of cognitive function could be mapped to one another, as well as to global measures of disease severity; and (3) following therapy discontinuation, cognitive function would revert immediately to natural history levels. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of cost (2005 US$) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime (3% discount rate). RESULTS: SIB scores were estimated to improve by 3.3 over 1 year from therapy with memantine plus donepezil (vs. donepezil alone). While pharmacotherapy costs were estimated to increase by $1250 during the year of memantine treatment, costs of formal and informal services were estimated to decrease by $1240 over this period and by $1493 (discounted present value) over a lifetime. Findings were sensitive to the assumed SIB score at therapy initiation; cost-effectiveness was better for patients with higher initial SIB scores (i.e., less severe disease). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe AD already receiving donepezil, treatment with memantine results in improved clinical outcomes and reduced total costs of care.