Real-World Treatment Patterns and Switching Following Moderate/Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation in Patients with Commercial or Medicare Insurance in the United States.

Purpose: There is limited literature regarding real-world treatment patterns of patients with COPD, particularly since the introduction of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in 2017. Here, we evaluated treatment patterns of patients with COPD before and after a COPD exacerbation. Patients and Methods: Retrospective, descriptive study using medical and pharmacy claims data and enrollment information from the Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart database. Patients aged ≥40 years with ≥1 COPD exacerbation on or after September 18, 2017 were included. The index date was the last day of the first COPD exacerbation (ie day of visit for a moderate exacerbation or discharge date for a severe exacerbation). The baseline period was 12 months prior to index and the follow-up period (≥3 months) spanned from index until the earliest of health plan disenrollment, end of data availability (September 30, 2020), or death. Treatment patterns were evaluated during baseline and follow-up, with a focus on medication switching in the 90 days pre- and post-index. Results: COPD exacerbations were identified in 307,727 patients (125,942 severe; 181,785 moderate). Mean age at index was 72.8 years; 56.3% were female. Before and after first exacerbation, 37.7% and 48.2% of patients used ≥1 controller medication, respectively. In the 90 days pre-index, ICS, LABA, and LAMA medications were used by 27.5% of patients. Of these users, 64.3% remained on the same medication class, 21.7% discontinued, and 14.1% switched medication in the 90 days post-index. Among switchers, 44.0% switched to triple therapy. Most common switches were ICS/LABA to ICS/LABA/LAMA (20.7%) and LAMA to ICS/LABA/LAMA (16.4%). Conclusion: Many COPD exacerbations occur among patients not on controller medications. Although the percentage of patients receiving a controller medication increased following a first exacerbation, it remained below 50%. Of patients receiving controller medications pre-exacerbation, only a small proportion escalated to triple therapy post-exacerbation.

Adherence and persistence to once-daily single-inhaler versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the USA: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Triple therapy comprising an inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting ß2 agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) is recommended for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients at risk of exacerbation. Multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is associated with poor adherence and persistence; however, these outcomes have not been evaluated for single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI). METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims database identified patients with COPD initiating triple therapy between 18 September 2017 and 30 June 2019. The first date of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI dispensing, or first day of overlapping ICS, LAMA, and LABA medications for MITT users, defined the index date. Patients were ≥40 years, had ≥12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index (baseline) and ≥6 months' coverage post-index; those with MITT during baseline were excluded. Inverse probability weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) and was evaluated using linear and log-binomial models. Persistence (non-persistence identified as >30-day gap between fills) was evaluated using Cox models. RESULTS: 9942 patients (FF/UMEC/VI: 2782; MITT: 7160) were included. Adherence was significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus MITT users (mean PDC, 0.66 vs. 0.48; p < 0.001), and FF/UMEC/VI users were twice as likely to be adherent (PDC ≥0.8) than MITT users (46.5% vs. 22.3%; risk ratio [95% CI]: 2.08 [1.85-2.30]; p < 0.001). After 12 months, significantly more FF/UMEC/VI users persisted on therapy than MITT users (35.7% vs. 13.9%; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.91 [1.81-2.01]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients initiating single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI had significantly improved adherence and persistence compared with MITT.

Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Each cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan-Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Compared with Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol, Budesonide/Formoterol, and Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy in Patients with COPD Who Have High Costs and Comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with increased medical costs and risk of exacerbations. This study compared COPD-related medical costs and exacerbations in high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving initial maintenance treatment (IMT) with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), budesonide/formoterol (B/F), or tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated UMEC/VI, FP/SAL, B/F, or TIO between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as date of the first fill). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years at index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, 12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index, and high pre-index costs (≥80th percentile of IMT population) and comorbidities (Quan-Charlson comorbidity index ≥3). Propensity score matching was used to control for potential confounders. On-treatment COPD-related medical costs (primary endpoint) and exacerbations were evaluated. RESULTS: Matched cohorts were well balanced on baseline characteristics (UMEC/VI vs FP/SAL: n=1194 each; UMEC/VI vs B/F: n=1441 each; UMEC/VI vs TIO: n=1277 each). Patients receiving UMEC/VI had significantly lower COPD-related medical costs versus FP/SAL (difference: $6587 per patient per year; P=0.048), and numerically lower costs versus B/F and TIO. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly lower risk of COPD-related severe exacerbation versus FP/SAL (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62, 0.98]; P=0.032), B/F (0.77 [0.63, 0.95]; P=0.016), and TIO (0.79 [0.64, 0.98]; P=0.028). The rate of COPD-related severe exacerbations was significantly lower with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.73 [0.59, 0.91]; P=0.008) and B/F (0.73 [0.59, 0.93]; P=0.012), and numerically lower versus TIO (0.83 [0.68, 1.04]; P=0.080). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI compared with FP/SAL, B/F, and TIO as IMT may have lower medical costs and exacerbation risk.

Hospital Admission and Readmission Among US Patients Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Patients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are at risk of further readmissions, increased treatment costs, and excess mortality. This study evaluated inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients with COPD who initiated maintenance therapy with UMEC/VI or TIO from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as earliest dispensing). Eligibility criteria included: ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility pre-index; age ≥ 40 years at index; no pre- or post-index asthma diagnosis; and no pre-index claims for medications containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Outcomes included time to first on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admission, rate of on-treatment COPD-related admissions, and rate of all-cause and COPD-related readmissions within 30 and 90 days. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Matched UMEC/VI and TIO cohorts each included 7997 patients and were balanced on baseline characteristics (mean age 70.9 years; female 47.1-47.6%). Over 12 months, patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly reduced risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.79, 0.96]; p = 0.006) and rates (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.72, 0.92]; p = 0.008) of COPD-related inpatient admissions compared with TIO. While all-cause readmission rates were similar between treatment cohorts, readmission rates among patients with an initial admission length of stay of 1-3 days were numerically lower for UMEC/VI versus TIO (30-day readmissions: 10.5% vs. 12.4%; 90-day readmissions: 15.5% vs. 19.8%). Similar patterns were observed for COPD-related readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the real-world benefits of dual therapy with UMEC/VI versus TIO in reducing inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients with COPD, which may translate to lower healthcare costs.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are admitted to the hospital are more likely to be readmitted in the future, have higher healthcare costs, and are more likely to die from their illness. Patients who are readmitted to hospital have even higher treatment costs. Identifying which treatments are best at reducing the number of patients with COPD who are admitted to the hospital may help to improve outcomes and reduce the cost of COPD treatment. We used US healthcare claims data to compare two daily treatments for COPD, umeclidinium/vilanterol and tiotropium. We aimed to find out which treatment was more effective at reducing hospital admissions due to COPD. We also compared how many patients on each treatment were readmitted within 30 or 90 days of their original hospital admission for COPD. We found that patients who started treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol were less likely to be admitted to the hospital for COPD than patients who started treatment with tiotropium. Similar numbers of patients on each treatment were readmitted to the hospital within 30 or 90 days after they were discharged. However, among patients whose initial hospital stay was short (1­3 days), readmissions within 30 or 90 days were less common with umeclidinium/vilanterol than tiotropium. These findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than tiotropium at reducing the number of patients with COPD who need to be admitted or readmitted to hospital. Starting COPD treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol may lead to better health outcomes and lower costs than tiotropium.

Medication adherence and persistence in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients receiving triple therapy in a USA commercially insured population.

INTRODUCTION: This longitudinal, retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD describes baseline characteristics, adherence, and persistence following initiation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) from multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT). METHODS: Patients aged ≥40 years receiving MITT between January 2012 and September 2015 were identified from the IQVIA™ Real-world Data Adjudicated Claims-USA database. MITT was defined as subjects with ≥1 overlapping days' supply of three COPD medications (ICS, LABA, and LAMA). Adherence (proportion of days covered, PDC) and discontinuation (defined as a gap of 1, 30, 60, or 90 days of supply in any of the three components of the triple therapy) were calculated for each patient over 12 months of follow-up. In addition, analyses were stratified by number of inhalers. RESULTS: In total, 14,635 MITT users were identified (mean age, 62 years). Mean PDC for MITT at 12 months was 0.37%. Mean PDC for the ICS/LABA and LAMA component at 12 months was 49% (0.49±0.31; median, 0.47) and 54% (0.54±0.33; 0.56), respectively. The proportion of adherent patients (PDC ≥0.8) at 12 months was 14% for MITT. Allowing for a 30-day gap from last day of therapy, 86% of MITT users discontinued therapy during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients with COPD had low adherence to and persistence with MITT in a real-world setting. Mean PDC for each single inhaler component was higher than the mean PDC observed with MITT. Reducing the number of inhalers may improve overall adherence to intended triple therapy.

Adherence to rivaroxaban versus apixaban among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Analysis of overall population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant users.

BACKGROUND: Medication non-adherence can result in poor health outcomes. Understanding differences in adherence rates to non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) could guide treatment decisions and improve clinical outcomes among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to rivaroxaban and apixaban among the overall NVAF population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant (OAC) users (e.g., multiple comorbidities, non-adherence risk factors). METHODS: Using healthcare claims from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (7/2012-7/2015), adult patients with ≥2 dispensings of rivaroxaban or apixaban ≥ 180 days apart with > 60 days of supply, ≥ 6 months of pre- and post-index eligibility, ≥ 1 atrial fibrillation diagnosis pre- or on the index date, and without valvular involvement were identified. Propensity-score methods adjusting for potential baseline confounders were used to create matched cohorts of rivaroxaban and apixaban patients. Adherence was assessed during the implementation phase using the percentage of patients with proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥0.8 at 6 months. Subgroups of patients with prior OAC use were evaluated; additional subgroups were identified and evaluated by Quan-Charlson Comorbidity index ≥2 and presence of non-adherence risk factors (i.e., mental disorders, stress, isolation, and rheumatoid arthritis). RESULTS: A total of 13,890 NVAF subjects were included in each of the 2 matched cohorts. All baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts. At 6 months, significantly more rivaroxaban users were adherent to treatment compared to apixaban users (81.8% vs. 78.0%; absolute difference of 3.8%; p<.001). Rivaroxaban users had significantly higher adherence rates in all subgroups examined. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban users had consistently higher adherence rates than apixaban users overall and among all NVAF subgroups examined.

Adherence to Rivaroxaban Compared with Other Oral Anticoagulant Agents Among Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to oral anticoagulant (OAC) agents is important for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to prevent potentially severe adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world adherence rates and time to discontinuation for rivaroxaban versus other OACs (apixaban, dabigatran, and warfarin) among patients with NVAF using claims-based data. METHODS: Health care claims from the IMS Health Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims database (July 2012-June 2015) were analyzed. Adherence rate was defined as the percentage of patients with proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 0.80 and ≥ 0.90. Discontinuation was defined as a gap of more than 30 days between the end of a dispensing days of supply and the start date of the next fill, if any. Patients were included if they had ≥ 2 dispensings of rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, or warfarin at least 180 days apart (the first was considered the index date), had > 60 days of supply, had ≥ 6 months of pre-index eligibility, had ≥ 1 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosis pre-index or at index date, and had no valvular involvement. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate adherence to OAC therapy, while a Cox model was used to compare time to discontinuation; both models adjusted for baseline confounders. RESULTS: A total of 13,645 rivaroxaban, 6,304 apixaban, 3,360 dabigatran, and 13,366 warfarin patients were identified. A significantly higher proportion of rivaroxaban users (80.1%) was adherent to therapy (PDC ≥ 0.80 at 6 months) versus apixaban (75.8%), dabigatran (69.2%), and warfarin users (64.5%). After adjustment, the proportion of patients adherent to therapy remained significantly higher for rivaroxaban users versus apixaban (absolute difference [AD] = 5.8%), dabigatran (AD = 9.5%), and warfarin users (AD = 13.6%; all P < 0.001). More pronounced differences were found with a PDC ≥0.90. In addition, rivaroxaban users were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy compared with other OACs after adjustments (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among NVAF patients, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher adherence rates relative to other OACs whether using either a PDC of > 0.80 or > 0.90. Such differences in adherence could translate into improved patient outcomes and lower health care costs. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Ashton, Crivera, and Schein are employees and stockholders of Janssen Scientific Affairs. Laliberté, Germain, Wynant, and Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that received research grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs in connection with this study. McHorney is an employee of Evidera, a consulting company that received research grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs in connection with this study. Peterson received research grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs in connection with this study. All authors contributed to concept and design. The data were collected by Germain, Wynant, Laliberté, and Lefebvre and interpreted primarily by McHorney and Peterson, with the assistance of Lefebvre, Laliberté, Ashton, Crivera, and Schein. The manuscript was written primarily by Laliberté, Germain, and Lefebvre, with the assistance of Wynant. Revisions were made primarily by Ashton, Crivera, McHorney, Schein, and Peterson.

Hospitalizations and Other Health Care Resource Utilization Among Patients with Deep Vein Thrombosis Treated with Rivaroxaban Versus Low-molecular-weight Heparin and Warfarin in the Outpatient Setting.

PURPOSE: Compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin, the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban has advantages, such as simplified care, that may lead to less health care resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective, matched-cohort analysis was conducted using claims dated between January 2011 and December 2013 from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases. Adult patients who had a primary diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during an outpatient or emergency room (ER) visit after November 2, 2012, and who were treated with rivaroxaban or LMWH/warfarin on the same day, were identified. Patients were observed over 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after the DVT diagnosis. The mean numbers of hospitalizations for all causes and for venous thromboembolism (VTE) (which included those for DVT or pulmonary embolism), as well as other health care resource utilization (ER, outpatient, and other visits), and the associated health care costs and pharmacy costs, were evaluated and compared between cohorts using the Lin method. FINDINGS: All of the 512 rivaroxaban-treated patients were well matched with the LMWH/warfarin-treated patients. The mean numbers of all-cause hospitalizations were significantly lower in the rivaroxaban users compared with those in the LMWH/warfarin users over 1 week (0.012 vs 0.032; P = 0.044) and 2 weeks (0.022 vs 0.048; P = 0.040). The corresponding mean numbers of VTE-related hospitalizations were significantly lower with rivaroxaban over 1 week (0.008 vs 0.028; P = 0.020), 2 weeks (0.016 vs 0.042; P = 0.020), and 4 weeks (0.034 vs 0.068; P = 0.036). The mean numbers of all-cause and VTE-related outpatient visits were also significantly lower in rivaroxaban users compared with those in LMWH/warfarin users over 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks (all, P < 0.001). In terms of all-cause and VTE-related ER and other visits, no statistically significant differences were found between cohorts over the first 4 weeks. The associated mean all-cause total health care costs were significantly lower in the rivaroxaban users compared with those in the LMWH/warfarin users over 1 week (US $2332 vs $3428; P < 0.001) and 2 weeks ($3108 vs $4524; P < 0.001); moreover, significantly lower mean costs related to all-cause hospitalizations (weeks 1 and 2) and pharmacy (weeks 1-4) were observed in patients treated with rivaroxaban, while no differences were found in costs related to ER visits (weeks 1-4), outpatient visits (weeks 1-4), or other visits (with the exception of week 1). IMPLICATIONS: Patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban after an outpatient/ER visit had significantly lower mean numbers of hospitalizations and outpatient visits, as well as lower mean total, hospitalization, and pharmacy costs during the first 2 weeks of treatment compared with those in matched LMWH/warfarin users.

Effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on hospitalization days and other health care resource utilization in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: an observational study from a cohort of matched users.

PURPOSE: Compared with warfarin, the new target-specific oral anticoagulant agents may have advantages, such as shorter hospital length of stay, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The objective of the present study was to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on the number of hospitalization days and other health care resource utilization in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users. METHODS: Data from health care claims dated from May 2011 to December 2012 from the Humana database were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on treatment with rivaroxaban or warfarin, with ≥2 diagnoses of AF (ICD-9-CM code 427.31), and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin recipients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban recipients. The end of the observation period was defined as the end of data availability, the end of insurance coverage, death, the date of a switch to another anticoagulant agent, or day 14 of treatment nonpersistence. The total number of hospitalization days and other health care resource utilization parameters (numbers of hospitalizations, emergency department [ED] visits, and outpatient visits) were evaluated using the method by Lin et al. FINDINGS: Matches for all rivaroxaban recipients were found, and the characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. The mean age of both cohorts was 74 years; 46% were female. The estimated mean total numbers of hospitalization days were significantly less in rivaroxaban users compared with those in warfarin users (all-cause, 2.71 vs 3.87 days [P = 0.032]; AF-related, 2.11 vs 3.02 days [P = 0.014]). The numbers of outpatient visits were also significantly less (all-cause, 25.26 vs 35.79 visits [P < 0.001]; AF-related, 5.48 vs 9.06 visits [P < 0.001]). Rivaroxaban users had a lesser estimated mean number of all-cause hospitalizations compared with warfarin users (0.55 vs 0.73; P = 0.084), and a significantly lesser estimated mean number of AF-related hospitalizations (0.40 vs 0.57; P = 0.022). The difference in the estimated mean numbers of all-cause ED visits was not statistically significant between the rivaroxaban and warfarin users. IMPLICATIONS: In this study conducted in clinical practice, the estimated mean numbers of hospitalization days, outpatient visits, and AF-related hospitalizations associated with rivaroxaban were significantly less than were those associated with warfarin in these patients with NVAF. The corresponding estimated difference in all-cause ED visits was not statistically significant.

Hospital length of stay of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients who were administered Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin with and without pretreatment parenteral anticoagulants therapies.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin has been the only anticoagulant used for decades to prevent strokes and systemic embolisms in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Compared with rivaroxaban, warfarin has a narrow therapeutic range and many genetic and food-drug interactions that could potentially prolong hospital length of stay (LOS). OBJECTIVE: To compare hospital LOS between NVAF patients who were administered rivaroxaban versus warfarin with and without pretreatment of parenteral anticoagulant agents in a population of rivaroxaban-treated patients. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort analysis was conducted using the Premier Perspective Comparative Hospital Database from November 2010 to September 2012. Adult patients were included in the study if they had a hospitalization for NVAF. Rivaroxaban users were matched with up to 4 warfarin users based on propensity score analyses. Patients with and without pretreatment of parenteral anticoagulant agents were evaluated separately. Hospital LOS was compared between treatment groups using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The matched cohorts' characteristics were well balanced. Among the matched rivaroxaban and warfarin users who were administered parenteral agents, the mean age of the cohorts was 70 years and 47% of patients were female, whereas in the sample of patients who were not administered parenteral agents, the mean age was 72 years and 50% of patients were female. In the sample of patients who were administered parenteral agents, rivaroxaban users had significantly shorter hospital LOS (LOS difference: 1.38 days, P < 0.001) compared with warfarin users among rivaroxaban-treated patients. No significant difference in LOS was found in the sample of patients who were not administered parenteral anticoagulant agents (P = 0.169). CONCLUSION: In the study sample of NVAF patients who were administered parenteral anticoagulant agents, rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly shorter hospital LOS compared with warfarin. The difference in LOS was not statistically significant in the sample of patients who were not administered parenteral anticoagulant agents.

Is rivaroxaban associated with lower inpatient costs compared to warfarin among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?

BACKGROUND: Warfarin has been the mainstay treatment used by patients with a moderate-to-high risk of stroke due to non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Unlike rivaroxaban, laboratory monitoring to allow the attainment of the prothrombin time international normalized ratio goal is required with warfarin, thereby potentially increasing a patient's hospitalization costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospitalization costs between hospitalized NVAF patients using rivaroxaban versus warfarin in a real-world setting. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis was conducted using the Premier Perspective Comparative Hospital Database from November 2010 to September 2012. The study included adult patients hospitalized for NVAF after November 2011. Patients using rivaroxaban during hospitalization were matched with up to four warfarin users by propensity score analyses. Hospitalization costs were compared between the matched cohorts using generalized estimating equations. A sub-analysis was performed for patients who were first administered their treatment on day three or later of their hospital stay. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on matched cohorts with a primary diagnosis of AF. RESULTS: The matched cohorts' (2809 rivaroxaban and 11,085 warfarin users) characteristics were well balanced. The mean age of cohorts was 71 years and 49% of patients were female. The average hospitalization cost of rivaroxaban users was $11,993 compared to $13,255 for warfarin users. The cost difference was significantly lower by $1284 (P < 0.001). Patients who were administered rivaroxaban treatment on day three or after incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs (cost difference: $4350; P < 0.001) compared to warfarin users. Rivaroxaban users with a primary diagnosis of AF also had significantly lower costs compared to warfarin users. LIMITATIONS: These included possible inaccuracies or omissions in diagnoses, completeness of baseline characteristics, and a study population that included patients newly initiated on and patients who continued anticoagulant therapy. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization costs for rivaroxaban were significantly lower than those for warfarin in NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban.

Hospital length of stay: is rivaroxaban associated with shorter inpatient stay compared to warfarin among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?

BACKGROUND: Warfarin has been the mainstay treatment for prevention of stroke among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Unlike rivaroxaban, warfarin requires laboratory monitoring to allow the attainment of the prothrombin time (PT) international normalized ratio (INR) goal, thereby potentially prolonging a patient's hospital length of stay (LOS). OBJECTIVE: To compare hospital LOS between hospitalized NVAF patients using rivaroxaban versus warfarin in a real-world setting. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis was conducted using the Premier Perspective Comparative Hospital Database from 11/2010 to 9/2012. Adult patients were included in the study if they had a hospitalization for NVAF. Patients using rivaroxaban during hospitalization were matched with up to four warfarin users by propensity score analyses. Patients who were first administered their oral anticoagulants on day 3 or later of their hospital stay were also evaluated. Comparison of hospital LOS was assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The characteristics of the matched cohorts were well balanced. Among the matched rivaroxaban and warfarin users (2809 and 11,085 patients, respectively), the mean age of the cohorts was 71 years and 49% of patients were female. The average (median) hospital LOS for rivaroxaban patients was 4.46 (3) days, compared to 5.27 (4) days for the warfarin cohort. The mean difference in hospital LOS of 0.81 days (19.44 hours) was found to be significant at P < 0.001. Patients who were administered rivaroxaban on day 3 of their hospital stay or later also had a significantly lower LOS compared to warfarin users. LIMITATIONS: These included inaccuracies or omissions in diagnoses, completeness of baseline characteristics, and a study population that included patients newly initiated on and patients who continued anticoagulant therapy. CONCLUSION: The study sample of NVAF patients receiving rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly shorter hospital length of stay compared to the sample of patients receiving warfarin.