Patient Preference for Dosing Frequency Based on Prior Biologic Experience.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research exploring patient preferences regarding dosing frequency of biologic treatment of psoriasis. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis identified in a healthcare claims database completed a survey regarding experience with psoriasis treatments and preferred dosing frequency. Survey questions regarding preferences were posed in two ways: (1) by likelihood of choosing once per week or 2 weeks, or 12 weeks; and (2) by choosing one option among once every 1-2 or 3-4 weeks or 1-2 or 2-3 months. Data were analyzed by prior biologic history (biologic-experienced vs biologic-naïve, and with one or two specific biologics). RESULTS: Overall, 426 patients completed the survey: 163 biologic-naïve patients and 263 biologic-experienced patients (159 had some experience with etanercept, 105 with adalimumab, and 49 with ustekinumab). Among patients who indicated experience with one or two biologics, data were available for 219 (30 with three biologics and 14 did not specify which biologic experience). The majority of biologic-naïve (68.8%) and overall biologic-experienced (69.4%) patients indicated that they were very likely to choose the least frequent dosing option of once every 12 weeks (Table 1). In contrast, fewer biologic-naïve (9.1% and 16.7%) and biologic-experienced (22.5% and 25.3%) patients indicated that they were very likely to choose the 1-week and 2-week dosing interval options, respectively. In each cohort grouped by experience with specific biologics, among those with no experience with ustekinumab, the most chosen option was 1-2 weeks. The most frequently chosen option was every 2-3 months, among patients with any experience with ustekinumab, regardless of their experience with other biologics. CONCLUSIONS: The least frequent dosing interval was preferred among biologic naïve patients and patients who had any experience with ustekinumab. Dosing interval may influence the shared decision-making process for psoriasis treatment with biologics.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(3):220-226.

Topiramate intervention to prevent transformation of episodic migraine: the topiramate INTREPID study.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to evaluate whether topiramate prevents development of chronic daily headache (CDH, ≥15 headache days per month) in adult subjects with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM, 9-14 migraine headache days/month). A secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of topiramate as preventive migraine treatment in this population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing topiramate 100 mg/day and placebo for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was new-onset CDH at month 6. Secondary efficacy measures included migraine and headache days. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 159 topiramate subjects and 171 placebo subjects were efficacy-evaluable. At month 6, 1.4% of topiramate subjects versus 2.3% of placebo subjects had CDH (p = .589). Compared with placebo, topiramate treatment was associated with statistically significant reductions in mean number of migraine days (6.6 vs. 5.3/28 days; p = .001) and headache days (6.6 vs 5.3/28 days; p = .001). Most commonly reported AEs in the topiramate versus placebo group included paresthesia (32.4% vs. 7.0%), fatigue (14.8% vs. 8.6%), dizziness (11.4% vs. 7.6%) and nausea (10.8% vs. 9.2%). CONCLUSION: Topiramate 100 mg/day did not prevent the development of CDH at six months in subjects with HFEM. Topiramate was effective in reducing headache days and migraine headache days and generally well tolerated.

Characterizing patients with psoriasis on injectable biologics adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab: A chart review study.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined plaque psoriasis (PsO) patient characteristics across injectable biologics. METHODS: Data were collected from 400 US dermatologists randomly selecting five charts each for patients with PsO (patient n = 2000): adalimumab (ADA; n = 447), etanercept (ETA; 539), ustekinumab (UST) 45 mg (511) and UST 90 mg (503). Physicians had to have been in practice 2-30 years, managing 10+ patients (5 + with biologics for PsO). Generalized estimating equation models, weighted according to inverse probability of patient selection and accounting for patient correlation within physicians, examined patient measures as a function of treatment (UST 90 mg = reference). RESULTS: Patients on UST 90 mg had higher odds of weighing >100 kg (adjusted mean = 34.4%) vs. ADA (10.9%), ETA (5.5%) or UST 45 mg (6.8%), greater body surface affected and higher odds of severe PsO prior to treatment and higher odds of prior biologics use. Mean prior biologics used was higher with UST 90 mg versus ADA or ETA. Number of comorbidities was higher with UST 90 mg versus ETA or UST 45 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Among biologics-treated patients with PsO, UST 90 mg appears to be used in patients with greater weight, baseline severity and prior biologics experience than ADA, ETA or UST 45 mg. UST 90 mg is used in patients with more comorbidities than other treatments except ADA.

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.

A pilot controlled trial of topiramate for mania in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of topiramate monotherapy for acute mania in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder type I. METHOD: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study was discontinued early when adult mania trials with topiramate failed to show efficacy. Efficacy end points included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Children, Children's Depression Rating Scale, Children's Global Assessment Scale, and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement. RESULTS: Fifty-six children and adolescents (6-17 years) with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type I received topiramate (n=29, 52%) or placebo (n=27, 48%). The only statistically significant differences in efficacy measures between treatment groups were the difference between slopes of the linear mean profiles of the YMRS (p=.003) using a post hoc repeated measures regression and the change in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Children at day 28 (-14.9 versus-5.9, p=.048) using observed data. Adverse events with topiramate included decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and paresthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate was well tolerated; however, the results are inconclusive because of premature termination resulting in a limited sample size. Adequately powered controlled trials are necessary to determine whether topiramate has efficacy in reducing symptoms of acute mania in children and adolescents.

Economic outcomes with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients: observations from prasugrel users and matched clopidogrel users.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs between clopidogrel and prasugrel over 30-day and 365-day periods after discharge from the hospital or emergency room (ER) in patients treated with prasugrel who were hospitalized or had an ER visit for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was based on claims from January 2009-July 2012 in the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. Clopidogrel patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 to prasugrel-treated patients. Lin's frequentist cost history method for censored data and Bayesian zero-inflated gamma regression models were used to analyze healthcare costs. RESULTS: The clopidogrel/prasugrel matched-cohort included 10,963 well-matched pairs of patients. Lin's frequentist analysis showed that outpatient visit costs were significantly lower for clopidogrel than prasugrel after 30 days of follow-up. At 30 days, Bayesian data analysis showed strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause and ACS-related hospitalization costs and showed very strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause and ACS-related outpatient visit costs. At 365 days, Bayesian data analysis showed strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause outpatient visit costs and very strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for ACS-related outpatient visit costs. Point estimates of the all-cause and ACS-related ER visit costs at 30 days and 365 days were similar, but statistical results were inconclusive because of the large variability in this outcome variable. CONCLUSION: Based on retrospective observational data in a real-world setting, all-cause and ACS-related hospitalization and outpatient visit costs were lower for clopidogrel than prasugrel over 30 days after discharge from a hospitalization or ER visit associated with ACS in patients treated with prasugrel. At 365 days the difference in all-cause and ACS-related outpatient costs remained, but there was little evidence of a difference in either all-cause or ACS-related hospitalization costs.

Patient-reported treatment satisfaction and choice of dosing frequency with biologic treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis has a serious effect on health-related quality of life. Patients treated with biologic medications place importance on satisfaction and treatment frequency options. We assessed patient-reported treatment satisfaction and dosing frequency choice with biologics. METHODS: We used a health care claims database to identify patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Participants completed the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication. Results were compared between patients experienced with biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, or ustekinumab) or not (cyclosporine or methotrexate). Participants were asked for their choices of dosing options of once every 1-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks, 1-2 months, or 2-3 months. Participants were also asked for their choices of dosing options of every 1, 2, 3, and so on up to every 12+ weeks. RESULTS: A total of 426 patients completed the survey (263 biologic-experienced and 163 biologic-naïve patients). Patient satisfaction with psoriasis treatment was significantly higher in the biologic-experienced cohort. The most frequently chosen option (38.8% of all participating patients) was every 2-3 months; 37.3% chose once every 1-2 weeks. Significant differences were found in the percentage of biologic-naïve patients choosing 2-3-month (49.7%) over 1-2-week (20.9%) dosing (P<0.001). Among biologic-experienced patients, the difference between the percentage of patients choosing the 2-3-month (35.7%) and 1-2-week (41.8%) options was not significant (P=0.264). The two most often week-specific intervals chosen by biologic-naïve patients were 12+ weeks (42.3%) and 4 weeks (15.6%). The biologic-experienced patients most often chose 12+ weeks (31.2%) and 1 week (25.9%). CONCLUSION: Patients using biologics reported satisfaction with their treatment, which may positively affect outcomes. Longer dosing intervals were chosen most frequently among all patients combined. Reports of patient satisfaction with prior treatments and choices regarding dosing frequency, among all other considerations, should be evaluated in determining an appropriate biologic medication for psoriasis.

Effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients: observations from rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.

INTRODUCTION: New target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users. METHODS: Health care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin's method. RESULTS: Matches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542). CONCLUSION: Despite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.

Rates of hospitalization among patients with deep vein thrombosis before and after the introduction of rivaroxaban.

BACKGROUND: Compared to warfarin, the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban may have advantages in treating patients with venous thromboembolism, because injectable bridging therapy and routine laboratory monitoring are not required. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of hospitalization in patients treated with rivaroxaban after its introduction with what it would have been before the introduction of rivaroxaban. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis was conducted using the MarketScan Hospital Drug Database from January 2011 to December 2013. Adult patients with a primary diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) treated with rivaroxaban or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridged to warfarin during the first day of an evaluation at a hospital were identified. Based on propensity-score methods, historical LMWH/warfarin patients (i.e., patients who received LMWH/warfarin before the approval of rivaroxaban) were matched 4:1 to rivaroxaban patients, and the rates of hospitalization were compared. RESULTS: All rivaroxaban-treated patients (n = 134) in the database were well matched with four historical LMWH/warfarin-treated patients (n = 536). Among the rivaroxaban cohort, 60% of the patients were admitted to the hospital, compared to 82% of the historical patients treated with LMWH/warfarin in the matched cohort. The difference was statistically significant and corresponded to a 27% reduction in hospital admissions (rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.73 [0.62-0.84]). Hospital admission rates adjusted for time-trend analyses also led to similar results. CONCLUSION: The availability of rivaroxaban significantly reduced the hospitalization rate in patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban compared to what it would have been if only LMWH/warfarin were available.

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.

Levofloxacin efficacy in the treatment of community-acquired legionellosis.

BACKGROUND: Although fluoroquinolones possess excellent in vitro activity against Legionella, few large-scale clinical trials have examined their efficacy in the treatment of Legionnaires disease. Even fewer studies have applied rigorous criteria for diagnosis of community-acquired Legionnaires disease, including culture of respiratory secretions on selective media. METHODS: Data from six clinical trials encompassing 1,997 total patients have been analyzed to determine the efficacy of levofloxacin (500 mg qd or 750 mg qd) in treating patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) due to Legionella. RESULTS: Of the 1,997 total patients with CAP from the clinical trials, 75 patients had infection with a Legionella species. Demographics showed a large portion of these patients were < 55 years of age and nonsmokers. More than 90% of mild-to-moderate and severe cases of Legionella infection resolved clinically at the posttherapy visit, 2 to 14 days after treatment termination. No deaths were reported for any patient with Legionnaires disease treated with levofloxacin during the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Levofloxacin was efficacious at both 500 mg for 7 to 14 days and 750 mg for 5 days. Legionnaires disease is not associated only with smokers, the elderly, and the immunosuppressed, but also has the potential to affect a broader demographic range of the general population than previously thought.

A multicenter, open-label, randomized comparison of levofloxacin and azithromycin plus ceftriaxone in hospitalized adults with moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Changing etiologic patterns and the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance, particularly an increase in macrolide-resistant pneumococcal bacteremia, are causing physicians to adopt new approaches to the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). OBJECTIVE: The relative efficacy and tolerability of levofloxacin monotherapy and azithromycin and ceftriaxone combination therapy were assessed in hospitalized adults with moderate to severe CAP. METHODS: This Phase IV, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial compared 2 treatment regimens: (1) levofloxacin 500 mg PO or IV q24h, and (2) azithromycin 500 mg IV q24h for > or = 2 days plus ceftriaxone 1 g IV q24h for 2 days, followed by an optional transition to azithromycin 500 mg PO q24h at the investigator's discretion. The total duration of therapy was to be a minimum of 10 days in both treatment groups. Ceftriaxone was included in the initial azithromycin regimen to ensure coverage against pneumococcal bacteremia. RESULTS: Of 236 patients in the intent-to-treat population, completion or withdrawal information was available for 110 patients in the levofloxacin group and 114 in the azithromycin group. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were comparable between groups. At the end of treatment, the clinical success rate (cured + improved) in clinically evaluable patients was 94.1% in the levofloxacin group and 92.3% in the azithromycin group. The respective posttherapy microbiologic eradication rates were 89.5% and 92.3%. Levofloxacin was as well tolerated as azithromycin, with an incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) for all body systems of 5.3% and 9.3%, respectively. None of the drug-related AEs were considered serious [corrected]. CONCLUSIONS: In this study in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe CAP, levofloxacin monotherapy was at least as effective as a combination regimen of azithromycin and ceftriaxone in providing coverage against the current causative pathogens in CAP. In addition, levofloxacin was as well tolerated as the combination of azithromycin and ceftriaxone.

Healthcare costs for Crohn's disease patients treated with infliximab: a propensity weighted comparison of the effects of treatment adherence.

OBJECTIVE: The objective for the research was to evaluate the direct healthcare costs for Crohn's disease (CD) patients categorized by adherence status. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥1 claim for infliximab and ≥2 claims for CD who were continuously insured for 12 months before and after their first infliximab infusion (index date) were identified in a 2006-2009 US managed care database. Patients were excluded if they had rheumatoid arthritis claims, received infliximab billed as a pharmacy benefit, or received another biologic drug. Patients were categorized as being either adherent or intermittently adherent to infliximab using a pre-defined algorithm. Total and component direct costs, CD-related costs, rates of surgery, and days of hospitalization were estimated for the 360-day post-index period. Propensity weighted generalized linear models were used to adjust the cost estimates for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The total propensity weighted cost for infliximab adherent patients was $40,425 (95% CI = [$38,686, $42,242]), compared to $41,082 (95% CI = [$38,163, $44,223]) for the intermittently adherent (p = 0.71). However, adherent patients had lower total direct medical costs, exclusive of infliximab, that were $13,097 (95% CI = [$12,141, $14,127]) compared with $20,068 (95% CI = [$17,676, $22,784]) for intermittently adherent patients as a result of substantially lower hospital and outpatient costs (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Greater drug-related costs for infliximab adherent patients were offset by lower costs from hospitalization and outpatient visits. These findings indicate that adherent patients have improved clinical outcomes, at a similar aggregate cost, than patients who are only intermittently adherent to therapy.

Inflammatory bowel disease: healthcare costs for patients who are adherent or non-adherent with infliximab therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare costs of inflammatory bowel disease are substantial. This study examined the effect of adherence versus non-adherence on healthcare costs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: Adults who started infliximab treatment between 2006 and 2009 and had a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease were identified from MarketScan Databases. Medication adherence was defined as an infliximab medication possession ratio of 80% or greater in the first year. Mean treatment effects (adherence versus non-adherence) on costs in adherent patients were estimated with propensity-weighted generalized linear models. RESULTS: A total of 1646 patients were identified. Significant variables in the model used to develop propensity weights were age, year of infliximab initiation, having Medicare coverage, presence of supplementary diagnoses, office as the place of service for infliximab initiation, prior aminosalicylate use, prior outpatient costs, number of prior outpatient visits, and number of prior colonoscopies. Mean total costs in adherent (n = 674) and propensity-weighted non-adherent (n = 972) patients were $41,713 versus $47,411 overall (p < 0.001), including $28,289 versus $14,889 for infliximab drug costs (p < 0.001), $2458 versus $17,634 for hospitalizations (p < 0.001), $7357 versus $10,909 for outpatient visits (p < 0.001), $236 versus $458 for emergency room visits (p < 0.001), and $3373 versus $3521 for other pharmaceuticals costs (p = 0.460). LIMITATIONS: Costs associated with infliximab administration (infusions, adverse events) were captured in healthcare costs (inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room), not in infliximab costs. The influence of adherence on indirect costs (e.g., time lost from work) could not be determined. Reasons for non-adherence were not available in the database. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who were adherent to infliximab treatment (a medication possession ratio of 80% or greater in the first year), adherence versus non-adherence was associated with lower total healthcare costs, supporting the overall value of infliximab adherence in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

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.

Real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban and warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban was shown to be effective in reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in a randomized controlled trial setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world safety, effectiveness, and persistence associated with rivaroxaban and warfarin in nonvalvular AF patients. METHODS: Healthcare claims from Symphony Health Solutions' Patient Transactional Datasets from May 2011 to July 2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin, with ≥2 AF diagnoses (ICD-9-CM: 427.31) and a CHADS2 score ≥1 during the 180 day baseline period were included. Cohorts were matched 1:4 using propensity score methods. Study outcomes were major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, composite stroke and systemic embolism, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) events. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare event and persistence rates. RESULTS: The matched sample included 3654 rivaroxaban and 14,616 warfarin patients. Matching was adequate, with all standardized differences in patient characteristics <10%. No significant differences were observed for bleeding and composite stroke and systemic embolism outcomes, although rivaroxaban users were associated with significantly fewer VTE events (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.54, p < 0.0001) compared to warfarin users. Rivaroxaban was also associated with a significantly lower risk of treatment non-persistence (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.60-0.72, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Claims data may have contained inaccuracies, and mortality and laboratory data were not available. Confounding may still have been possible even after propensity score matching. Early use pattern of medications may have changed over time. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that rivaroxaban and warfarin do not differ significantly in real-world rates of composite stroke and systemic embolism and major, intracranial, or GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban, however, was associated with significantly fewer VTE events and significantly better treatment persistence compared with warfarin.

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.

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.

Bayesian data analysis in observational comparative effectiveness research: rationale and examples.

Many comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research studies will need to be observational for one or both of two reasons: first, randomized trials are expensive and time-consuming; and second, only observational studies can answer some research questions. It is generally recognized that there is a need to increase the scientific validity and efficiency of observational studies. Bayesian methods for the design and analysis of observational studies are scientifically valid and offer many advantages over frequentist methods, including, importantly, the ability to conduct comparative effectiveness research/patient-centered outcomes research more efficiently. Bayesian data analysis is being introduced into outcomes studies that we are conducting. Our purpose here is to describe our view of some of the advantages of Bayesian methods for observational studies and to illustrate both realized and potential advantages by describing studies we are conducting in which various Bayesian methods have been or could be implemented.

All-cause and disease-related health care costs associated with recurrent venous thromboembolism.

It was the objective of this study to quantify the risk of complications and the incremental health care costs associated with recurrent VTE events. Health care insurance claims from the Ingenix IMPACT database from 01/2004-09/2008 were analysed. Subjects aged ≥18 years on the date of first recurrent VTE diagnosis with ≥12 months of baseline observation prior to the index recurrent VTE were matched 1:1 with no-recurrent VTE patients based on propensity scores. The risk of developing post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and other disease-related diagnoses (thrombocytopenia, superficial venous thrombosis, venous ulcer, pulmonary hypertension, stasis dermatitis, and venous insufficiency) was compared between the recurrent and no-recurrent VTE groups for up to one year. All-cause and disease-related costs per patient per year (PPPY) were calculated. The recurrent VTE and no-recurrent VTE cohorts (8,001 subjects in each group) were matched with respect to age, gender, and comorbidities. The risk ratios (RRs) indicated that the risk of developing post-event complications was significantly higher for the recurrent VTE group compared to the no-recurrent VTE group (RR [95% CI]: PTS: 2.7 [2.4 - 2.9], p-value <0.01). Patients with recurrent VTE had significantly higher average PPPY all-cause costs compared to no-recurrent VTE patients ($86,744 versus $37,525, cost difference: $49,219 [€33,617]; 95% CI= 46,253-51,989). Corresponding disease-related health care costs PPPY were also significantly higher for the recurrent VTE group ($11,120 vs $1,262, cost difference: $9,858 [€6,733]; 95% CI= $9,081-$10,476). In conclusion, in this large matched-cohort study, recurrent VTE patients had significantly higher risk of complications and health care costs compared to no-recurrent VTE patients.