RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive form of fibrosing interstitial pneumonia with poor survival. This study provides insight into the epidemiology, cost, and disease course of IPF in Germany. METHODS: A cohort of incident patients with IPF (n = 1737) was identified from German claims data (2014-2019). Incidence and prevalence rates were calculated and adjusted for age differences compared with the overall German population. All-cause and IPF-related healthcare resource utilization as well as associated costs were evaluated per observed person-year (PY) following the initial IPF diagnosis. Finally, Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess time from initial diagnosis to disease deterioration (using three proxy measures: non-elective hospitalization, IPF-related hospitalization, long-term oxygen therapy [LTOT]); antifibrotic therapy initiation; and all-cause death. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of IPF was estimated at 10.7 per 100,000 individuals in 2016, 10.9 in 2017, 10.5 in 2018, and 9.6 in 2019. The point prevalence rates per 100,000 individuals for the respective years were 21.7, 23.5, 24.1, and 24.1. On average, ≥ 14 physician visits and nearly two hospitalizations per PY were observed after the initial IPF diagnosis. Of total all-cause direct costs (15,721/PY), 55.7% (8754/PY) were due to hospitalizations and 29.1% (4572/PY) were due to medication. Medication accounted for 49.4% (1470/PY) and hospitalizations for 34.8% (1034/PY) of total IPF-related direct costs (2973/PY). Within 2 years of the initial IPF diagnosis (23.6 months), 25% of patients died. Within 5 years of diagnosis, 53.1% of patients had initiated LTOT; only 11.6% were treated with antifibrotic agents. The median time from the initial diagnosis to the first non-elective hospitalization was 5.5 months. CONCLUSION: The incidence and prevalence of IPF in Germany are at the higher end of the range reported in the literature. The main driver for all-cause cost was hospitalization. IPF-related costs were mainly driven by medication, with antifibrotic agents accounting for around one-third of the total medication costs even if not frequently prescribed. Most patients with IPF do not receive pharmacological treatment, highlighting the existing unmet medical need for effective and well-tolerated therapies.
Asunto(s)
Fibrosis Pulmonar Idiopática/economía , Fibrosis Pulmonar Idiopática/epidemiología , Anciano , Antifibróticos/uso terapéutico , Bases de Datos Factuales , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Alemania/epidemiología , Hospitalización/economía , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Fibrosis Pulmonar Idiopática/terapia , Incidencia , Masculino , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno/economía , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno/estadística & datos numéricos , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Prevalencia , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Purpose: Achieving good glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) may require individualized pharmacological approaches. We aimed to compare direct healthcare costs in patients treated with empagliflozin (EMPA) compared to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RA). Patients and Methods: This German claims data study included continuously insured persons with at least two outpatient diagnoses and/or one inpatient diagnosis of T2DM if they started EMPA, DPP-4i, or GLP-1-RA in 2015-2018. Healthcare costs were assessed from therapy initiation until the end of data availability, death, or therapy discontinuation and compared among propensity score-matched cohorts. Results: Of 24,465 patients included, 3285 received EMPA, 19,443 DPP-4i, and 1747 GLP-1-RA. Matched cohorts were balanced on baseline characteristics (EMPA versus DPP-4i: n1/n2 = 3100/3100 and EMPA versus GLP-1-RA: n3/n4 = 1346/1346). Mean total costs after start of DPP-4i were 7009 (95%-CI: 6573-7444) versus 4274 (3982-4566) for EMPA. Costs associated with GLP-1-RA treatment were also significantly higher compared with EMPA (6851 [6183-7518] versus 4895 [4345-5445]). Conclusion: Although the individual clinical patient profile and physician assessment are paramount in treatment decisions, substantial differences in the economic impact of different antidiabetic therapies should be considered.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This study analyzes the impact of skeletal-related events (SRE) on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs incurred by patients with bone metastases (BM) from solid tumors (ST), who are therapy-naïve to bone targeting agents (BTAs). METHODS: German claims data from 01/01/2010 to 30/06/2018 were used to conduct a retrospective comparative cohort analysis of BTA-naive patients with a BM diagnosis and preceding ST diagnosis. HCRU and treatment-related costs were compared in two matched cohorts of patients with and without a history of SREs, defined as pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, surgery to bone and radiation to bone. The first SRE was defined as the patient-individual index date. Conversely, for the non-SRE patients, index dates were assigned randomly. RESULTS: In total, 45.20% of 9,832 patients reported experiencing at least one SRE (n = 4444) while 54.80% experienced none (n = 5388); 2,434 pairs of SRE and non-SRE patients were finally matched (mean age: 70.87/71.07 years; females: 39.07%/38.58%). Between SRE and non-SRE cohorts, significant differences in the average number of hospitalization days per patient-year (35.80/30.80) and associated inpatient-care costs (14,199.27/10,787.31) were observed. The total cost ratio was 1.16 (p < 0.001) with an average cost breakdown of 23,689.54 and 20,403.27 per patient-year in SRE and non-SRE patients. CONCLUSION: The underutilization of BTAs within a clinical setting poses an ongoing challenge in the real-world treatment of BM patients throughout Germany. Ultimately, the economic burden of treating SREs in patients with BM from ST was found to be considerable, resulting in higher direct healthcare costs and increased utilization of inpatient care facilities.