Healthcare Resource Utilization, Exacerbations, and Readmissions Among Medicare Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease After Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Therapy Initiation with Soft Mist versus Dry Powder Inhalers.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often managed with inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), yet real-world data on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) by inhaler type are lacking. This study compared HRU after LAMA initiation with a soft mist inhaler (SMI) versus a dry powder inhaler (DPI). Patients and Methods: Inclusion criteria were COPD diagnosis, age ≥40 years, LAMA initiation (index date = first LAMA SMI or DPI claim 9/1/14-6/30/18), and Medicare Advantage enrollment 1 year pre-index (baseline) to ≥30 days post-index (follow-up). Patients were followed to the earliest of discontinuation, switch, disenrollment, 1 year, or study end (7/31/18). Exclusion criteria were asthma, cystic fibrosis, or lung cancer diagnoses, unavailable demographics, multiple index LAMAs, or baseline LAMA use. Cohorts (SMI or DPI) were balanced on baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Outcomes included per patient per month (PPPM) COPD-related HRU encounters, and exacerbations (defined as moderate [ambulatory visit with corticosteroid or antibiotic within ±7 days] or severe [emergency visit or inpatient admission]); and 30-day readmissions following COPD-related hospitalizations. Results: After weighting, cohorts (SMI [n=5360] and DPI [n=22,880]) were similar in age (72 and 73 years, respectively), gender (both 52% female), and COPD severity score (31.3 and 31.5, respectively). Cohorts had similar counts of follow-up HRU encounters. However, the SMI cohort had fewer (mean ± standard deviation) COPD-related exacerbations (0.054±0.082 vs DPI cohort 0.059±0.088 PPPM, p<0.001) overall. Moreover, the SMI cohort had fewer severe exacerbations (0.030±0.058 vs DPI: 0.034±0.065 PPPM, p<0.001). Hospitalizations among SMI patients had a lower adjusted odds of readmission versus hospitalizations among DPI patients (odds ratio: 0.656, 95% confidence interval= 0.460, 0.937; p=0.020). Conclusion: SMI initiators had significantly fewer COPD-related exacerbations than DPI initiators. In addition, lower odds of readmissions were observed following COPD-related hospitalizations among the SMI cohort, as compared with the DPI cohort.

Differences in Real-World Health and Economic Outcomes Among Patients with COPD Treated with Combination Tiotropium/Olodaterol Versus Triple Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommends combination long-acting muscarinic antagonists/long-acting beta2-agonists (LAMA + LABA) as preferred maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) after monotherapy and stepping up to triple therapy (TT; LAMA + LABA + inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) in case of further exacerbations. Restrictions on TT recommendations have primarily been driven by higher pneumonia risk associated with regular ICS use. Evidence suggests that TT is overprescribed, which may affect economic and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare health plan-paid costs, COPD exacerbations, and pneumonia diagnoses among patients newly treated with a LAMA + LABA regimen composed of tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) in a fixed-dose combination inhaler (TIO + OLO) or TT in a U.S. Medicare Advantage Part D insured population. METHODS: This retrospective study identified COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years who were initiating TIO + OLO or TT (index regimen) between January 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018, from a national administrative claims database. Continuous insurance coverage for 12 months pretreatment (baseline) and ≥ 30 days posttreatment (follow-up) was required. Patients were followed until the earliest of study end (May 31, 2018), discontinuation of index regimen (≥ 60-day gap in index regimen coverage), switch to a different regimen, or health plan disenrollment. Before analysis of outcomes, TIO + OLO and TT patients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, COPD medication use, medical resource use, and costs. Cohort differences in post-match outcomes were assessed by Wald Z-test (annualized costs) and Kaplan-Meier method (time to first COPD exacerbation and pneumonia diagnosis). RESULTS: After matching, each cohort had 1,454 patients who were well balanced on baseline characteristics. Compared with TT, the TIO + OLO cohort incurred $7,041 (41.1%) lower mean COPD-related total costs ($10,094 vs. $17,135; P < 0.001); cohort differences in the medical component ($3,666 lower for TIO + OLO) were driven by lower mean acute inpatient costs ($3,053 lower for TIO + OLO). Combined mean COPD plus pneumonia-related medical costs were $5,212 (39.0%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT ($8,209 vs. $13,421; P = 0.006), and total mean all-cause costs were $9,221 (30.4%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT ($21,062 vs. $30,283; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis found longer time to first severe COPD exacerbation (P = 0.020) and first pneumonia diagnosis (P = 0.002) for TIO + OLO versus TT and a lower percentage of TIO + OLO patients experiencing these events (severe COPD exacerbation: 9.0% vs. 16.1%; pneumonia: 14.5% vs. 19.3%). A secondary analysis, which expanded the TIO + OLO cohort to include any LAMA + LABA regimen, had similar findings for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients initiating TIO + OLO incurred lower costs to health plans and experienced fewer COPD exacerbation and pneumonia events relative to TT. These findings provide important real-world economic and clinical insight into the GOLD recommendations for TIO + OLO and LAMA + LABA therapy. The study findings also indicate the continued inconsistency between the recommendations and real-world clinical practices pertaining to TT. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI). Palli and Franchino-Elder are employees of BIPI. Frazer, DuCharme, Buikema, and Anderson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.

Healthcare resource utilization and expenditures among newly-diagnosed elderly non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiating oral anticoagulants.

Aims: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) prevalence increases with age. Hence, evaluating the economic burden among older-aged patients is vital. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among newly-diagnosed older-aged NVAF patients treated with warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban vs. dabigatran.Materials and Methods: Newly-diagnosed older-aged (aged ≥65 years) NVAF patients initiating dabigatran, warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban (first prescription date = index date) from 01JAN2010-31DEC2015 and with continuous enrollment for ≥12 months pre-index date were included from 100% Medicare database. Patient data were assessed until drug discontinuation/switch/dose change/death/disenrollment/study end (up to 12 months). Dabigatran initiators were 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) with warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban initiators. Generalized linear models were used to compare all-cause HRU and costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) between the matched cohorts.Results: After PSM with dabigatran, 70,531 warfarin, 51,673 rivaroxaban, and 25,209 apixaban patients were identified. Dabigatran patients had significantly fewer generalized-linear-model-adjusted PPPM hospitalizations (0.114 vs. 0.123; 0.111 vs. 0.121), and outpatient visits (2.864 vs. 4.201; 2.839 vs. 2.949) than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients, respectively, but had significantly more PPPM hospitalizations (0.103 vs. 0.090) and outpatient visits (2.780 vs. 2.673) than apixaban patients (all p < .0001). Dabigatran patients incurred significantly lower adjusted total PPPM costs ($3,309 vs. $3,362; $3,285 vs. $3,474) than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients, respectively (all p < .01) but higher total PPPM costs ($3,192 vs. $2,986) than apixaban patients (all p < .0001).Limitations: This study is subject to the inherent limitations of any claims dataset, including potential bias from coding errors and identification of medical conditions using diagnosis codes as opposed to clinical evidence. Medications filled over-the-counter or provided as samples by the physician are never captured in claims data.Conclusions: Newly-diagnosed older-aged NVAF patients initiating dabigatran incurred significantly lower adjusted all-cause HRU and costs than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients but higher adjusted HRU and costs than apixaban patients.

Comparison of stroke- and bleed-related healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation and newly treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: This is one of the first head-to-head real-world evidence studies comparing stroke-related and bleed-related healthcare and resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating oral anticoagulants. METHODS: Adult NVAF patients newly diagnosed and treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2014 were identified using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Per-patient-per-month stroke and bleed-related HCRU and costs were reported. RESULTS: Dabigatran patients were matched 1:1 to 26,592 rivaroxaban and 33,024 warfarin patients (mean age=68 years). Compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related inpatient and outpatient HCRU (0.004 vs. 0.005; 0.099 vs. 0.145) and significantly lower adjusted bleed-related costs ($116 vs. $172), all p <0.05. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran patients had significantly lower stroke-related outpatient visits (0.034 vs. 0.048, p<0.001) and higher bleed-related outpatient visits (0.101 vs. 0.091, p=0.045). Multivariate adjusted bleed-related costs were significantly lower for dabigatran patients than warfarin patients ($94 vs. $138, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related HCRU and costs than rivaroxaban patients, and lower outpatient stroke-related HCRU, higher bleed-related outpatient HCRU, and lower bleed-related costs than warfarin patients. It provides valuable stroke-related and bleed-related HCRU and costs information among commercially insured and Medicare patients.