Real-world health outcomes in adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the United States: a population study using electronic health records to examine patient-perceived treatment effectiveness, medication use, and healthcare resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding real-world health outcomes data among US psoriasis patients, but electronic health records (EHR) that collect structured data at point-of-care may provide opportunities to investigate real-world health outcomes among psoriasis patients. Our objective was to investigate patient-perceived treatment effectiveness, patterns of medication use (duration, switching, and/or discontinuation), healthcare resource utilization, and medication costs using real-world data from psoriasis patients. METHODS: Data for adults (≥18-years) with a dermatology provider-given diagnosis of psoriasis from 9/2014-9/2015 were obtained from dermatology practices using a widely used US dermatology-specific EHR containing over 500,000 psoriasis patients. Disease severity was captured by static physician's global assessment and body surface area. Patient-perceived treatment effectiveness was assessed by a pre-defined question. Treatment switching and duration were documented. Reasons for discontinuations were assessed using pre-defined selections. Healthcare resource utilization was defined by visit frequency and complexity. RESULTS: From 82,621 patients with psoriasis during the study period, patient-perceived treatment effectiveness was investigated in 2200 patients. The proportion of patients reporting "strongly agree" when asked if their treatment was effective was highest for biologics (73%) and those reporting treatment adherence (55%). In 16,000 patients who received oral systemics and 21,087 patients who received biologics, median treatment duration was longer for those who received biologics (160 vs. 113 days, respectively). Treatment switching was less frequent among patients on systemic monotherapies compared to those on combination therapies. The most common reason for discontinuing biologics was loss of efficacy; the most common reason for discontinuing orals was side effects. In 28,754 patients, higher disease severity was associated with increased healthcare resource utilization (increased visit frequency and complexity). When compared between treatment groups (n = 10,454), healthcare resource utilization was highest for phototherapy. Annual medication costs were higher for biologics ($21,977) than oral systemics ($3413). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world research using a widely implemented dermatology EHR provided valuable insights on patient perceived treatment effectiveness, patterns of medication usage, healthcare resource utilization, and medication costs for psoriasis patients in the US. This study and others utilizing EHRs for real-world research may assist clinical and payer decisions regarding the management of psoriasis.

Cost Per Additional Responder Associated With Ixekizumab and Etanercept in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Newer psoriasis treatments can achieve greater levels of efficacy than older systemic therapies; however, current psoriasis costs are substantial. We sought to estimate costs per additional responder associated with ixekizumab and etanercept, versus placebo, using efficacy data from phase 3 clinical trials (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3). METHODS: In UNCOVER-2/UNCOVER-3, patients received subcutaneous placebo, etanercept 50 mg twice weekly (BIW), or ixekizumab one 80 mg injection every 2 weeks (Q2W) after a 160-mg starting dose. Twelve-week induction-phase Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 response rates for ixekizumab, etanercept, and placebo were obtained from pooled data from the overall and United States (US) subgroup intention-to-treat (ITT) populations, and used to calculate numbers needed to treat (NNTs) to achieve one additional PASI 75, PASI 90, or PASI 100 response for ixekizumab Q2W and etanercept BIW versus placebo. Twelve-week drug costs per patient were calculated based on the UNCOVER-2/UNCOVER-3 dosing schedule and wholesale acquisition costs. Mean costs per additional responder for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 for each treatment versus placebo were calculated for pooled UN-COVER-2/UNCOVER-3 overall and US subgroup ITT populations. RESULTS: Pooled overall ITT population: costs per additional PASI 75, PASI 90, or PASI 100 responder were US $37,540, US $46,299, or US $80,710 for ixekizumab Q2W and US $57,533, US $120,720, or US $404,695 for etanercept BIW, respectively. US subgroup ITT population: costs per additional PASI 75, PASI 90, or PASI 100 responder were US $38,165, US $49,740, or US $93,536 for ixekizumab Q2W and US $69,580, US $140,881, or US $631,875 for etanercept BIW, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve-week costs per additional responder were lower for ixekizumab Q2W than for etanercept BIW across all levels of clearance (PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100) in the pooled UNCOVER-2/UNCOVER-3 overall and US subgroup ITT populations.

Predictors of self-reported benign prostatic hyperplasia in European men: analysis of the European National Health and Wellness Survey.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify predictors of European men who self-reported being diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (DxBPH) compared to men with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms [American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA-SI) score ≥8] who did not self-report a BPH diagnosis (non-DxBPH). METHODS: Data were taken from the 2010 European National Health and Wellness Survey; a cross-sectional, self-administered, Internet-based questionnaire. This analysis included males ≥40 years with DxBPH or without DxBPH, but with AUA-SI ≥8. Chi-square tests were used for categorical variables and independent samples t tests were used for continuous variables. Logistic regressions were conducted among all men ≥40 years to predict being DxBPH. RESULTS: About 1,638 DxBPH and 3,676 non-DxBPH men were included. The estimated prevalence of DxBPH and non-DxBPH was 8.53 and 19.13 %. Men with DxBPH were older than non-DxBPH males (mean age 66.1 and 58.3, P < 0.001). The mean AUA-SI score was 11.3 for DxBPH and 13.2 for non-DxBPH. Being older (OR = 1.077), having a university education (OR = 1.252), having private health insurance (OR = 1.186), and specific health behaviors/attitudes [regular exercise (OR = 1.191), visiting a doctor within the previous 6 months (OR = 2.398), consulting with a medical professional when not feeling well (OR = 1.097), reporting having an attentive doctor (OR = 1.112)], and higher voiding symptoms (OR = 1.032) were significant predictors of DxBPH. CONCLUSIONS: Older men with higher education and access to care and more engagement in their healthcare were more likely to self-report being diagnosed.

Osteoporosis and treatments in Japan: management for preventing subsequent fractures.

Prevalent fractures are major contributors to an increased risk of subsequent fractures, particularly in people with osteoporosis. While many studies have been conducted to assess the incidence of fracture in Japanese people with osteoporosis, far fewer have been conducted to assess the risk of subsequent fractures. This article reviews the morbidity, mortality, and risk of fracture in patients who are at high risk of subsequent fracture in Japan and the current treatment options available for these patients. Osteoporotic fractures in Japan are associated with high morbidity and mortality that result in significant financial and social costs. The rise in the proportion of elderly women in the Japanese population is contributing to a greater proportion of people with osteoporotic fractures and the high cost of osteoporosis. Although hip fractures have a significant effect on costs, a greater proportion of the Japanese population experience vertebral fractures. An increase in the incidence of vertebral fractures is concerning because preexisting vertebral fractures in older patients are associated with an increased risk of subsequent fractures. Hence, there is a clear rationale for pharmacological treatment of patients with prevalent vertebral fractures, or for those who are hospitalized or undergo surgery for osteoporotic fractures. Several pharmacological therapies are now available in Japan for the treatment of patients with osteoporosis. Understanding the consequences of subsequent fractures and the treatment options available for patients at high risk of subsequent fractures may contribute to clinical decision-making and improved outcomes for patients with osteoporosis.

Fractures in women treated with raloxifene or alendronate: a retrospective database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Raloxifene and alendronate are anti-resorptive therapies approved for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Raloxifene is also indicated to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and in postmenopausal women at high risk of invasive breast cancer. A definitive study comparing the fracture effectiveness and rate of breast cancer for raloxifene and alendronate has not been published. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate fracture and breast cancer rates among patients treated with raloxifene or alendronate. METHODS: Females ≥45 years who initiated raloxifene or alendronate in 1998-2006 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Databases, had continuous enrollment 12 months prior to and at least 12 months after the index date, and had a treatment medication possession ratio ≥80% were included in this study. Rates of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures and breast cancer during 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 years of treatment with raloxifene or alendronate were evaluated. Fracture rates were adjusted for potential treatment bias using inverse probability of treatment weights. Multivariate hazard ratios were estimated for vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. RESULTS: Raloxifene patients had statistically significantly lower rates of vertebral fractures in 1, 3, 5, and 7 years and for nonvertebral fractures in 1 and 5 years. There were no statistically significant differences in the adjusted fracture rates between raloxifene and alendronate cohorts, except in the 3-year nonvertebral fracture rates where raloxifene was higher. Multivariate hazard ratios of raloxifene versus alendronate cohorts were not significantly different for vertebral and nonvertebral fracture in 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 years. Unweighted and weighted breast cancer rates were lower among raloxifene recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with alendronate and raloxifene had similar adjusted fracture rates in up to 8 years of adherent treatment, and raloxifene patients had lower breast cancer rates.

Association of teriparatide adherence and persistence with clinical and economic outcomes in Medicare Part D recipients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Improper medication adherence is associated with increased morbidity, healthcare costs, and fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the healthcare utilization patterns of Medicare Part D beneficiaries newly initiating teriparatide, and to assess the association of medication adherence and persistence with bone fracture. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed medical and pharmacy claims of 761 Medicare members initiating teriparatide in 2008 and 2009. Baseline characteristics, healthcare use, and healthcare costs 12 and 24 months after teriparatide initiation, were summarized. Adherence, measured by Proportion of Days Covered (PDC), was categorized as high (PDC ≥ 80%), moderate (50% ≥ PDC < 80%), and low (PDC < 50%). Non-persistence was measured as refill gaps in subsequent claims longer than 60 days plus the days of supply from the previous claim. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated the association of adherence and persistence with fracture rates at 12 months. RESULTS: Within 12 months of teriparatide initiation, 21% of the cohort was highly-adherent. Low-adherent or non-persistent patients visited the ER more frequently than did their highly-adherent or persistent counterparts (χ2 = 5.01, p < 0.05 and χ2 = 5.84, p < 0.05), and had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($4,361 versus $13,472 and $4,757 versus $13,187, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, non-persistent patients had significantly lower total healthcare costs. The healthcare costs of highly-adherent patients were largely pharmacy-related. Similar patterns were observed in the 222 patients who had fractures at 12 months, among whom 89% of fracture-related costs were pharmacy-related. The regression models demonstrated no significant association of adherence or persistence with 12-month fractures. Six months before initiating teriparatide, 50.7% of the cohort had experienced at least 1 fracture episode. At 12 months, these patients were nearly 3 times more likely to have a fracture (OR = 2.9, 95% C.I. 2.1-4.1 p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to teriparatide therapy was suboptimal. Increased pharmacy costs seemed to drive greater costs among highly-adherent patients, whereas lower adherence correlated to greater ER utilization but not to greater costs. Having a fracture in the 6 months before teriparatide initiation increased fracture risk at follow-up.

Direct cost and healthcare resource utilization of patients with migraine before treatment initiation with calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies by the number of prior preventive migraine medication classes.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared all-cause direct cost and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among preventive migraine medication (PMM)-naïve patients and patients with up to 3 PMM category switches before initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the IBM Marketscan database. Patients who initiated injectable CGRP mAbs between May 2018 and December 2019 (index period) were included in 4 groups based on the number of prior non-CGRP PMM classes used during the 24-month pre-index period: P0 = none; P1 = one; P2 = two; P3 ≥ three. All-cause direct cost and HCRU for groups were compared without adjustment and after generalized propensity score (GPS) matching. RESULTS: Of the 23,288 patients included (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 45.4 ± 12.0 years), 85.6% were females, and the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0.69 ± 1.2. P3 group had the highest average annual unadjusted total healthcare costs per patient ($50,274±$76,629); the highest costs attributed to procedure/imaging-related expenses ($20,105±$36,401) and pharmacy ($11,633±$29,763). P0 group had the lowest cost ($25,288±$41,427). Pairwise comparison of GPS matched costs showed significantly greater average annual direct costs per patient in the P3 group vs. P0 (p = .003), P1 (p = .014), and P2 (p = .021) groups. GPS matched HCRU also increased with the number of prior PMM classes used. Anti-epileptics (48.9%) were the most commonly used PMM class, with triptans (75.2%) being the most common acute medication class. CONCLUSIONS: Total direct healthcare cost and HCRU increased significantly with increasing use of PMM classes with the greatest cost difference existing between the P0 and the P3 groups.

Medications used for the prevention of migraine (PMM) are underused as they might cause adverse effects, intolerance, or may lack efficacy. This leads to the discontinuation of the current treatment and switching to other treatments. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a new class of drugs for the prevention of migraine. Since 2018, four CGRP mAbs have been approved for use in the prevention of migraine. It is known that patients who use more preventive migraine treatments incur greater total direct (caused by a number of medical visits or increased healthcare resource utilization, surgery, drugs, equipment, etc.) annual healthcare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with migraine. In the current study, the annual average direct cost and HCRU were compared between patients who had not used preventive medicine and patients who had used 1, 2, or ≥3 preventive medicines for migraine before starting CGRP mAbs. We observed that the healthcare costs and HCRU increased with the use of a higher number of preventive medicines for migraine. Patients who started using injectable CGRP mAbs after at least 3 preventive medicines had the highest healthcare costs and HCRU compared with other groups.

Reductions in acute medication use and healthcare resource utilization in patients with chronic migraine: a secondary analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of galcanezumab with open-label extension (REGAIN).

AIMS: To analyze secondary objectives of the REGAIN study related to acute headache medication use and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide. METHODS: Adults with chronic migraine (N = 1,113) were randomized (2:1:1) and treated with double-blind monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab-120 mg, or galcanenzumab-240 mg for 3 months, followed by a 9-month open-label extension with 120 or 240 mg/month galcanezumab. Headache and medication information was collected by daily eDiary. HCRU was reported for the 6 months before randomization, monthly thereafter, and converted to rate per 100-patient-years. RESULTS: At baseline, 63-64% of patients met criteria for acute headache medication overuse. At Month 3, incidence of headache medication overuse in the galcanezumab groups (33% and 33%) was significantly lower than in the placebo group (46%, both p < .001) and was 16% and 23% in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. From a baseline of 14.5 to 15.5, reduction in mean number of monthly migraine headache days with acute headache medication use was also significantly greater in the galcanezumab groups at Month 3 (-4.2 and -4.9) than in placebo (-2.6, both p < .001), with reductions of -6.8 and -7.6 in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. Migraine-specific HCRU rates decreased for all groups, with no significant between-group differences at Month 3. At Month 12, in the two previous-galcanezumab groups, emergency room visits decreased by 58% and 75%, hospital admissions by 100%, and healthcare professional visits by 54% and 67%. LIMITATIONS: Only 3 months of double-blind, placebo-controlled data, a longer HCRU recall period for baseline than postbaseline, and patients receiving care in the clinical trial itself, may limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with galcanezumab resulted in significant reductions in headache medication overuse and migraine headache days requiring acute medication use, with notable reductions in migraine-specific HCRU.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Galcanezumab Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Episodic and Chronic Migraine Using the Metrics of Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm.

INTRODUCTION: Subcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM. METHODS: Primary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs. RESULTS: During double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM). CONCLUSION: Across 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of prevention-eligible patients with migraine in the US: a linked national survey and administrative claims database study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize burden of migraine in prevention-eligible patients compared with prevention non-eligible patients in the United States (US). Receipt of preventive therapy was also examined among prevention-eligible patients. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized data from the 2017 US National Health and Wellness Survey linked with medical and pharmacy claims. Patients aged ≥18 years who self-reported experiencing migraine and had confirmed evidence of migraine (≥1 medical or pharmacy claim) were included. Prevention eligibility was based on number of headache days in the past 30 days (prevention-eligible: ≥4 and prevention non-eligible: <4). Descriptive statistics summarized study variables; bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to examine the association of prevention-eligibility status with outcomes. RESULTS: Analyses included 450 patients, 291 (65%) prevention-eligible, and of these 56 (19%) received preventive therapy. Overall, patients were 42.98 ± 14.51 years old; 84% were female. Prevention-eligible patients reported significantly more migraine headache days in the past 6 months (29.27 ± 37.96 vs. 8.61 ± 7.88), had lower mental component summary scores (35.80 ± 2.73 vs. 37.90 ± 2.96), and more presenteeism (47.30 ± 2.98% vs. 37.90 ± 2.60%), overall work impairment (46.30 ± 2.87% vs. 37.90 ± 2.55%) and activity days missed due to migraine (8.16 ± 3.05 vs. 3.82 ± 1.58) than prevention non-eligible patients (all p<.001). Prevention-eligible patients receiving preventive therapy reported more migraine headache days during the past month (9.21 ± 7.99 vs. 6.06 ± 7.10; p=.002) and activity days lost due to migraine (18.39 ± 28.08 vs. 10.69 ± 21.43, p=.015) than those not receiving preventive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention-eligible patients experience greater burden due to migraine, including more headache days, worse health-related quality-of-life, and greater work and activity impairment than prevention non-eligible patients.

Predicting initiation of preventive migraine medications: exploratory study in a large U.S. medical claims database.

Objective: Despite guidelines that identify potential patients eligible for preventive migraine medications, their underutilization leaves patients at risk of acute medication overuse, disease progression, and higher healthcare resource utilization and disability. This exploratory, retrospective, observational study aimed to identify which factors predict preventive migraine medication initiation. Demographics and initiation of acute medication use were hypothesized to be predictive of initiation of preventive migraine medication.Methods: The Truven Health Analytics MarketScan1 U.S. Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims database (2011-2013) was used to identify adults newly diagnosed with migraine. Patients were divided into 2 subgroups: initiated a preventive migraine medication (antidepressants, anti-epileptics, beta-blockers, or neurotoxins) within 1 year of migraine diagnosis and did not initiate a preventive migraine medication. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with preventive migraine medication initiation.Results: Study population included 147,923 patients: 43,660 preventive migraine medication initiators and 104,263 non-preventive migraine medication patients. Best-fit model for predicting preventive migraine medication initiation included: female gender (odds ratio = 1.181 [95% CI = 1.144,1.218]; measured at date of first migraine diagnosis); headache diagnosis prior to migraine diagnosis (odds ratio = 1.538 [95% CI = 1.498,1.579]; measured 1-year before first migraine diagnosis); and sleep disorder (odds ratio = 1.206 [95% CI = 1.161,1.252]), headache/migraine-specific Emergency Department (ED) visit (odds ratio = 1.224 [95% CI = 1.168,1.283]), neurologist visit (odds ratio = 1.502 [95% CI = 1.459,1.547]), and acute medication refills with <90-day gap (odds ratio = 1.509 [95% CI = 1.470,1.549]) each measured at 1-year before first preventive migraine medication.Conclusions: In addition to consistent acute medication refills, specific comorbidity diagnoses, headache/migraine-specific ED utilization, and neurologist care are predictive of preventive migraine medication initiation in the 1-year post-incident migraine diagnosis.

A real-world analysis of patient-reported outcomes in patients with migraine by preventive treatment eligibility status in the US and Europe.

BACKGROUND: Migraine has a severe impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) affecting physical, emotional, and social aspects of daily living of an individual. Preventive treatment has been demonstrated to improve HRQoL by reducing the frequency of migraine headache days. METHODS: The study used data from 2017 Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Program, which is a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their consulting patients with migraine in the United States (US) and five European countries (EU [Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain]). Objectives were to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in the following two subgroups and by region (US and EU): (i) patients who are eligible for migraine preventive treatment (≥4 migraine headache days/month), and (ii) patients who are non-eligible for preventive treatment (< 4 migraine headache days/month). Patient-reported outcome measures that were assessed included the following: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Version 2.1, Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels version, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. RESULTS: In total, 5462 patients (US = 1373; EU = 4089) were included in the study (preventive eligible: US = 584; EU = 1942; preventive non-eligible: US = 789; EU = 2147). In the US and EU, preventive eligible patients were significantly more likely to have worse disability as measured by MIDAS than non-eligible patients; preventive eligible patients also had significantly greater functional impairment, worse health utility, and overall greater work impairment (p < 0.0001). Among patients who were preventive eligible, a larger proportion of patients in the US reported that migraine forced them to reduce the number of hours worked as compared with the EU population (29.0% vs 24.7%). CONCLUSION: Patients who were preventive eligible (≥4 migraine headache days/month) demonstrated greater burden of disease across multiple PRO measures; trends were similar across the US and the five EU countries.

Economic burden and risk factors of migraine disease progression in the US: a retrospective analysis of a commercial payer database.

AIMS: To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of migraine progression and to assess the incremental burden of migraine progression on healthcare systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients were required to have a migraine diagnosis in IQVIA's US adjudicated claims database between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2016, continuous enrollment ≥12 months before and after the index date (i.e. the first observed migraine diagnosis), and ≥1 additional migraine diagnosis claim during the 12-month post-index period. A previously-developed algorithm identified patients with prevention-eligible episodic migraine (EM). All-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were evaluated at baseline, over the follow-up period and pre/post progression from prevention-eligible EM to chronic migraine. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate risk factors associated with progression. RESULTS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS: Of the 125,436 patients with prevention-eligible EM that were initially identified, 5,790 (4.6%) were further identified as progressed. Patients who progressed had higher healthcare costs and higher medication use at baseline compared to patients that did not progress. Mean (SD) all-cause total costs per patient per month were $1,790 ($3,788), significantly higher in the post-progression period compared to $1,414 ($2,456) in the pre-progression period in patients who progressed (p < .0001). Younger age, female sex, initial diagnosis by a neurologist, chronic pain, and use of triptans and/or non-specific acute medications were all significant progression risk factors. Results are limited by the use of a heterogeneous population (incident, prevalent, treated, and untreated patients), coding biases, and lack of information on non-prescription drug utilization and plan limits. Limitations aside, there are substantial HCRU and cost burden associated with migraine progression. Younger age, female sex, and the use of specific drug classes are likely to increase migraine disease progression risk.

Cycling Through Migraine Preventive Treatments: Implications for All-Cause Total Direct Costs and Disease-Specific Costs.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common and disabling neurological disease associated with substantial economic burden. Among patients with migraine, it is unknown if cost differences exist when preventive migraine medication (PMM) switches occur. OBJECTIVE: To understand the cost burden and health care resource utilization of patients who discontinue or cycle through 1 (PMM1), 2 (PMM2), or ≥ 3 (PMM3) unique PMM drug classes over a 12-month period versus patients who adhere persistently to their initial PMM class. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases to identify adult patients with migraine initiating their first PMM class (antidepressants, antiepileptics, beta blockers, or neurotoxins) from 2011-2013 (index date = first PMM claim). Patients were required to have ≥ 2 outpatient (1 if inpatient) migraine diagnosis codes (ICD-9-CM 346.xx) from 1 year pre-index to 1 year post-index with ≥ 1 code occurring pre-index. Inclusion criteria also required 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous medical and prescription enrollment. All-cause and migraine-specific total direct costs (outpatient, inpatient, emergency department, and prescriptions), based on the 2014 Consumer Price Index, were estimated for each PMM versus a persistent subgroup during the 12-month post-index period. Propensity score bin bootstrapping, controlling for patient baseline characteristics, was used to adjust separate cost comparisons between each PMM subgroup and the persistent subgroup; bootstrap simulations yielded propensity score-adjusted P values. RESULTS: The study population included 55,402 patients who received a PMM. The study population was mainly female (85%) with a mean age of 39.2 years and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0.31. Antiepileptics were the most common drug class chosen at index across all subgroups; however, lower use of antiepileptics was observed in PMM2 and PMM3 subgroups, which were more likely to be prescribed either antidepressants or beta blockers at index. Mean all-cause total direct costs, including prescription costs, were significantly higher in PMM2 ($13,429) and PMM3 ($18,394) subgroups versus the persistent subgroup ($11,941; each adjusted pairwise comparison, P < 0.001). Mean migraine-specific total direct costs were significantly lower for the persistent subgroup ($2,420) versus PMM2 and PMM3 subgroups and escalated with increasing numbers of drug class discontinuations or switches, from a mean of $2,997 to $5,004 (both adjusted pairwise comparisons, P < 0.001). Subgroup differences in all-cause and migraine-specific direct costs were primarily due to variations in outpatient and emergency department services. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause total direct costs rose with increasing number of PMM switches over the 12-month post-index period, and were significantly higher than in the persistent subgroup, with the exception of PMM1. Additional analyses indicated that the lack of increase between PMM-persistent and PMM1 costs was due to higher pharmacy costs that were likely related to continuous use of medication in the PMM-persistent subgroup. These data suggest an increased cost burden among patients with migraine who cycle through ≥ 2 PMMs versus those who continue to receive their initial medication class. DISCLOSURES: Eli Lilly and Company was the sole sponsor and funder for this study and was responsible for the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of data, and decision to publish the findings. All authors are employees and minor stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Nyhuis was employed by Eli Lilly and Company at the time of this study. The findings of this study were presented in part at the 18th Congress of the International Headache Society; September 7-10, 2017; Vancouver, Canada.

Treatment patterns and predictors of costs among patients with migraine: evidence from the United States medical expenditure panel survey.

Aim: Within a treated migraine population, to evaluate if the sub-group meeting criteria for high disease-specific total costs is significantly different to the sub-group with medium and/or low-costs, and to identify the associated risk factors. Methods: Data from the Household Component of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC, 2008-2012), a nationally representative survey of non-institutionalized civilians in the US, were analyzed. Key inclusion criteria were migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 code: 346.XX) and prescribed treatment for migraine. Patients were categorized into high (>top 10th percentile), low (

Characteristics of patients initiating raloxifene compared to those initiating bisphosphonates.

BACKGROUND: Both raloxifene and bisphosphonates are indicated for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, however these medications have different efficacy and safety profiles. It is plausible that physicians would prescribe these agents to optimize the benefit/risk profile for individual patients. The objective of this study was to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients initiating raloxifene with those of patients initiating bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: This study was conducted using a retrospective cohort design. Female beneficiaries (45 years and older) with at least one claim for raloxifene or a bisphosphonate in 2003 through 2005 and continuous enrollment in the previous 12 months and subsequent 6 months were identified using a collection of large national commercial, Medicare supplemental, and Medicaid administrative claims databases (MarketScan). Patients were divided into two cohorts, a combined commercial/Medicare cohort and a Medicaid cohort. Within each cohort, characteristics (demographic, clinical, and resource utilization) of patients initiating raloxifene were compared to those of patients initiating bisphosphonate therapy. Group comparisons were made using chi-square tests for proportions of categorical measures and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. Logistic regression was used to simultaneously examine factors independently associated with initiation of raloxifene versus a bisphosphonate. RESULTS: Within both the commercial/Medicare and Medicaid cohorts, raloxifene patients were younger, had fewer comorbid conditions, and fewer pre-existing fractures than bisphosphonate patients. Raloxifene patients in both cohorts were less likely to have had a bone mineral density (BMD) screening in the previous year than were bisphosphonate patients, and were also more likely to have used estrogen or estrogen/progestin therapy in the previous 12 months. These differences remained statistically significant in the multivariate model. CONCLUSION: In this sample of patients enrolled in commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plans, patients who initiated raloxifene treatment differed from those initiating bisphosphonates. Raloxifene patients were younger, had better overall health status and appeared to be less likely to have risk factors for new osteoporotic fractures than bisphosphonate patients. Differences in the clinical profiles of these agents may impact prescribing decisions. Investigators using observational data to make comparisons of treatment outcomes associated with these medications should take these important differences in patient characteristics into consideration.

Patient satisfaction, health care resource utilization, and acute headache medication use with galcanezumab: results from a 12-month open-label study in patients with migraine.

BACKGROUND: Effects of galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide, on patient satisfaction, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and acute medication use were evaluated in a long-term, open-label study in patients with migraine. METHODS: Patients with episodic (78.9%) or chronic migraine (21.1%) were evaluated in the CGAJ study, an open-label study with 12-month treatment period. Galcanezumab 120 mg (with a loading dose of 240 mg) or 240 mg was administered subcutaneously once a month during treatment period. A self-rated scale, Patient Satisfaction with Medication Questionnaire-Modified (PSMQ-M), was used to measure satisfaction levels. Participants reported HCRU for the previous 6 months at baseline and that which occurred since the patient's last study visit during treatment period. Acute headache medication use for migraine or headache for the past month was self-reported by participants at baseline and at each monthly visit during treatment period. RESULTS: At Months 1, 6, and 12, at least 69% of patients treated with galcanezumab responded positively for overall satisfaction, preference over prior treatments, and less impact from side effects. There were within-group reductions from baseline in migraine-specific HCRU (per 100 person-years) with galcanezumab for health care professional visits (173.4 to 59.6), emergency room visits (20.2 to 4.7), and hospital admissions (3.7 to 0.4) during treatment period. Statistically significant reductions in HCRU were observed for some events. There were significant within-group reductions from baseline in mean number of days/month with acute headache medication use for migraine or headache at each monthly visit during treatment period (overall change: -5.1 for galcanezumab 120 mg/240 mg; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Results from this long-term, open-label study suggest that treatment with galcanezumab is likely to lead to high patient satisfaction with treatment as well as meaningful reductions in migraine-specific HCRU and acute headache medication use in people with migraine.

Direct and Indirect Costs Among United States Commercially Insured Employees With Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare direct, indirect, and societal (direct plus indirect) costs between patients with and without migraine (controls). METHODS: Patients with migraine were identified from MarketScan claims and Health and Productivity Management databases from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2013, and were propensity score matched (1:1) to controls. RESULTS: Patients with migraine (N = 26,647) were matched to controls, of whom 4323 were matched for work absence and 26,212 for short-term disability eligibility. Mean annualized direct costs ($13,032 vs $3234), indirect costs due to absence ($4104 vs $3531) and short-term disability ($1131 vs $52), and societal costs due to absence ($16,043 vs $6938) and short-term disability ($14,278 vs $3182) were all significantly higher (P < 0.001) for those patients with migraine versus controls, respectively. CONCLUSION: Migraine imposes high direct and indirect economic burden on payers and society due to significantly higher work productivity loss than controls.

Cost per additional responder for ixekizumab and other FDA-approved biologics in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the cost-efficacy of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO) in the US is limited. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number needed to treat (NNT) and monthly cost of achieving one additional Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responder for ixekizumab and other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biologics in PsO. METHODS: A network meta-analysis estimated the probability of achieving PASI 75, 90, or 100 response during induction for each biologic. NNTs were calculated using response difference of each respective biologic vs placebo at the end of induction. Monthly costs per additional PASI responder were based on FDA-approved doses, wholesale acquisition costs, and induction NNTs. RESULTS: Induction NNTs for ixekizumab 80 mg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) relative to placebo were consistently lower across all levels of clearance compared with the other biologics. Monthly cost per additional responder was lowest for ustekinumab 45 mg at PASI 75 and for secukinumab 300 mg and ixekizumab 80 mg Q2W at PASI 90. Ixekizumab 80 mg Q2W had the lowest cost for PASI 100. CONCLUSION: In this analysis, ixekizumab is the most cost-efficient biologic in the US when targeting complete resolution, as measured by PASI 100 in PsO.

Healthcare costs in psoriasis and psoriasis sub-groups over time following psoriasis diagnosis.

AIMS: To quantify healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis overall and in psoriasis patient sub-groups, by level of disease severity, presence or absence of psoriatic arthritis, or use of biologics. METHODS: Administrative data from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Database were used to select adult patients with psoriasis from January 2009 to January 2014. The first psoriasis diagnosis was set as the index date. Patients were required to have ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits pre-index and ≥12 months post-index. Patients were followed from index until the earliest of loss to follow-up or study end. All-cause healthcare costs and outpatient pharmacy costs were calculated for the overall psoriasis cohort and for the six different psoriasis patient sub-groups: (a) patients with moderate-to-severe disease and mild disease, (b) patients with psoriatic arthritis and those without, and (c) patients on biologics and those who are not. Costs are presented per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and by years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of follow-up, expressed in 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: A total of 108,790 psoriasis patients were selected, with a mean age of 46.0 years (52.7% females). Average follow-up was 962 days. All-cause healthcare costs were $12,523 PPPY. Outpatient pharmacy costs accounted for 38.6% of total costs. All-cause healthcare costs were highest for patients on biologics ($29,832), then for patients with psoriatic arthritis ($23,427) and those with moderate-to-severe disease ($21,481). Overall, all-cause healthcare costs and outpatient pharmacy costs presented an upward trend over a 5-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Psoriasis is associated with significant economic burden, which increases over time as the disease progresses. Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, those with psoriatic arthritis, or use of biologics contributes to higher healthcare costs. Psoriasis-related pharmacy expenditure is the largest driver of healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis.