Differences in health care outcomes between postdischarge COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist via dry-powder inhalers and pressurized metered-dose inhalers.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine real-world differences in health care resource use (HRU) and costs among COPD patients in the USA treated with a dry powder inhaler (DPI) or pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) following a COPD-related hospitalization. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used the Truven MarketScan® databases. Eligibility criteria included 1) age ≥40 years, 2) COPD diagnosis, 3) inpatient admission with a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation, 4) inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) prescription within 10 days of hospital discharge (index date), and 5) continuous enrollment for 12 months preindex and 90 days postindex. Outcomes included pre- and postindex HRU and costs. DPI and pMDI groups were compared on postindex outcomes via multivariate models controlling for demographic and baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 1,960 DPI and 1,086 pMDI ICS/LABA patients. During the preindex period, pMDI patients were significantly more likely to be prescribed a short-acting ß-agonist, experienced more COPD exacerbation-related hospital days, and had a greater number of pulmonologist visits compared to DPI patients (P<0.05), all suggestive of greater disease severity. However, multivariate models revealed that pMDI patients incurred 10% lower all-cause postindex costs (predicted mean costs [2016 US dollars]: $2,673 vs $2,956) and 19% lower COPD-related costs (predicted mean costs: $138 vs $169; P<0.05). Additionally, pMDI patients were 28% less likely to experience a COPD exacerbation-related hospital readmission within 60 days postdischarge compared to the DPI patients (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52-0.99, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite greater COPD-related HRU and costs preceding index hospitalization, US patients using a pMDI after hospital discharge incurred significantly lower all-cause and COPD-related health care costs compared with those using a DPI, in addition to a decreased likelihood of a COPD exacerbation-related hospital readmission. Results suggest that inhaler device type may influence COPD outcomes and that COPD patients may derive greater clinical benefit from treatment delivered via pMDI vs DPI.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dapagliflozin versus sitagliptin.

AIMS: To compare healthcare costs and utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated dapagliflozin (DAPA) with costs and utilization in those who initiated sitagliptin (SITA) in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of health plan enrollees in two US commercial claims databases or Medicare Part D. The study population comprised adult patients with T2D who initiated DAPA or SITA between January 1, 2014 and April 30, 2015. DAPA and SITA initiators were propensity-score-matched, and healthcare utilization and costs during the 1-year follow-up period were compared. Analyses were conducted separately for patients with evidence of oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) monotherapy use at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2722 patients were included in each matched cohort. Follow-up unadjusted all-cause costs ($16 065 and $17 281; P = 0.135) and diabetes-related costs ($9697 and $9354; P = 0.539) were similar in the DAPA and SITA cohorts. Higher office and outpatient visit costs in the SITA group were offset by higher pharmacy costs in the DAPA group. In the subgroup of 1804 patients with OAD monotherapy use at baseline, patients in the SITA group had higher total all-cause costs compared with those in the DAPA group ($14 884 vs. $12 353; P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Patients who initiated DAPA or SITA had similar all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare costs over 1 year of follow-up. In the subgroup of patients treated with OAD monotherapy at baseline (84% metformin monotherapy), those who initiated DAPA as add-on therapy had lower costs than patients who added SITA.

Resource use and costs associated with opioid-induced constipation following total hip or total knee replacement surgery.

PURPOSE: Constipation is a well-known complication of surgery that can be exacerbated by opioid analgesics. This study evaluated resource utilization and costs associated with opioid-induced constipation (OIC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective, observational, and propensity-matched cohort study utilized the Premier Healthcare Database. The study included adults ≥18 years of age undergoing total hip or total knee replacement as inpatients who received an opioid analgesic and were discharged between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2015. Diagnosis codes identified patients with OIC who were then matched 1:1 to patients without OIC. Generalized linear and logistic regression models were used to compare inpatient resource utilization, total hospital costs, inpatient mortality, and 30-day all-cause readmissions and emergency department visits. RESULTS: Of 788,448 eligible patients, 40,891 (5.2%) had OIC. Covariates were well balanced between matched patients with and without OIC (n=40,890 each). In adjusted analyses, patients with OIC had longer hospital lengths of stay (3.6 versus 3.3 days; p<0.001), higher total hospital costs (US$17,479 versus US$16,265; p<0.001), greater risk of intensive care unit admission (odds ratio [OR]=1.12, 95% CI: 1.01-1.24), and increased likelihood of 30-day hospital read-missions (OR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.11-1.22) and emergency department visits (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 1.07-1.79) than patients without OIC. No statistically significant difference was found with inpatient mortality (OR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.59-1.35). CONCLUSION: OIC was associated with greater resource utilization and hospital costs for patients undergoing primarily elective total hip or total knee replacement surgery. These results support OIC screening and management strategies as part of perioperative care management.

Rates of myocardial infarction and stroke in patients initiating treatment with SGLT2-inhibitors versus other glucose-lowering agents in real-world clinical practice: Results from the CVD-REAL study.

The multinational, observational CVD-REAL study recently showed that initiation of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) was associated with significantly lower rates of death and heart failure vs other glucose-lowering drugs (oGLDs). This sub-analysis of the CVD-REAL study sought to determine the association between initiation of SGLT-2i vs oGLDs and rates of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Medical records, claims and national registers from the USA, Sweden, Norway and Denmark were used to identify patients with T2D who newly initiated treatment with SGLT-2i (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin or empagliflozin) or oGLDs. A non-parsimonious propensity score was developed within each country to predict initiation of SGLT-2i, and patients were matched 1:1 in the treatment groups. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were generated using Cox regression models. Overall, 205 160 patients were included. In the intent-to-treat analysis, over 188 551 and 188 678 person-years of follow-up (MI and stroke, respectively), there were 1077 MI and 968 stroke events. Initiation of SGLT-2i vs oGLD was associated with a modestly lower risk of MI and stroke (MI: HR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .05; Stroke: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97; P = .02). These findings complement the results of the cardiovascular outcomes trials, and offer additional reassurance with regard to the cardiovascular effects of SGLT-2i, specifically as it relates to ischaemic events.

Cost Comparison of Urate-Lowering Therapies in Patients with Gout and Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk for developing gout and having refractory disease. Gout flare prevention relies heavily on urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol and febuxostat, but clinical decision making in patients with moderate-to-severe CKD is complicated by significant comorbidity and the scarcity of real-world cost-effectiveness studies. OBJECTIVE: To compare total and disease-specific health care expenditures by line of therapy in allopurinol and febuxostat initiators after diagnosis with gout and moderate-to-severe CKD. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted to compare mean monthly health care cost (in 2012 U.S. dollars) among gout patients with CKD (stage 3 or 4) who initiated allopurinol or febuxostat. The primary outcome was total mean monthly health care expenditures, and the secondary outcome was disease-specific (gout, diabetes, renal, and cardiovascular disease [CVD]) expenditures. Gout patients (ICD-9-CM 274.xx) aged ≥ 18 years with concurrent CKD (stage 3 or 4) were selected from the MarketScan databases (January 2009-June 2012) upon allopurinol or febuxostat initiation. Patients were followed until disenrollment, discontinuation of the qualifying study agent, or use of the alternate study agent. Patients initiating allopurinol were subsequently propensity score-matched (1:1) to patients initiating febuxostat. Five generalized linear models (GLMs) were developed, each controlling for propensity score, to identify the incremental costs (vs. allopurinol) associated with febuxostat initiation in first-line (without prior allopurinol exposure) and second-line (with prior allopurinol exposure) settings. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded 2 cohorts, each with 1,486 patients (64.6% male, mean [SD] age 67.4 [12.8] years). Post-match, 74.6% of patients had stage 3 CKD; 82.9% had CVD; and 42.1% had diabetes. The post-match sample was well balanced on numerous comorbidities and medication exposures with the following exception: 50.0% of febuxostat initiators were treated in the second-line setting; that is, they had baseline exposure to allopurinol, whereas only 4.2% of allopurinol initiators had baseline exposure to febuxostat. Unadjusted mean monthly cost was $1,490 allopurinol and $1,525 febuxostat (P = 0.809). GLM results suggest that first-line febuxostat users incurred significantly (P = 0.009) lower cost than allopurinol users ($1,299 vs. $1,487), whereas second-line febuxostat initiators incurred significantly (P = 0.001) higher cost ($1,751 vs. $1,487). Febuxostat initiators in both settings had significantly (P < 0.001) higher gout-specific cost, due to higher febuxostat acquisition cost. Increased gout-specific cost in the first-line febuxostat cohort was offset by significantly (P < 0.001) lower CVD ($288 vs. $459) and renal-related cost ($86 vs. $216). There were no significant differences in either renal or CVD costs (adjusted) between allopurinol initiators treated almost exclusively in the first-line setting and second-line febuxostat patients. CONCLUSIONS: Gout patients with concurrent CKD, initiating treatment with febuxostat in a first-line setting, incurred significantly less total cost than patients initiating allopurinol during the first exposure to each agent. Conversely, patients treated with second-line febuxostat following allopurinol incurred significantly higher total cost than patients initiating allopurinol. There was no significant difference in total cost between the agents across line of therapy. Although study findings suggest the potential for CVD and renal-related savings to offset febuxostat's higher acquisition cost in gout patients with moderate-to-severe CKD, this is the first such retrospective evaluation. Future research is warranted to both demonstrate the durability of study findings and to better elucidate the mechanism by which associated cost offsets occur. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Turpin is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Mitri and Wittbrodt were employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. at the time of this study. Tidwell and Schulman are employees of Outcomes Research Solutions, consultants to Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. All authors contributed to the design of the study and to the writing and review of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Tidwell and Schulman collected the data, and all authors participated in data interpretation.