Costs associated with adverse events during treatment episodes for adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication is frequently associated with adverse events (AEs), but limited real-world data exist regarding their costs from a payer's perspective. Therefore, this study evaluated the healthcare costs associated with common AEs among adult patients treated for ADHD in the US. METHODS: Eligible adults treated for ADHD were identified from a large US claims database (1 October 2015-30 September 2021). A retrospective cohort study design was used to assess excess healthcare costs and costs directly related to AE-specific claims per-patient-per-month (PPPM) associated with 10 selected AEs during ADHD treatment. To account for all costs associated with the AE, treatment episodes with a given AE were compared to similar treatment episodes without this AE. Entropy balancing was used to create cohorts with similar characteristics. Studied AEs were selected based on their prevalence in clinical trials for common ADHD medications and were identified from ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes recorded in claims. RESULTS: Among the 461,464 patients included (mean age: 34.2 years; 45.5% males), 49.4% had ≥1 AE during their treatment episode. Treatment episodes with AEs were associated with statistically significant AE-specific medical costs (erectile dysfunction: $57; fatigue: $82; dry mouth: $90; diarrhea: $162; insomnia: $147; anxiety: $281; nausea: $299; constipation: $356; urinary hesitation: $491; feeling jittery: $723) and excess healthcare costs PPPM (erectile dysfunction: $120, fatigue: $248, insomnia: $265, anxiety: $380, diarrhea: $441, dry mouth: $485, nausea: $709, constipation: $802, urinary hesitation: $1,105, feeling jittery: $1,160; p < .05). LIMITATIONS: AEs were identified based on recorded diagnosis on medical claims and likely represent more severe AEs. Therefore, costs may not be representative of milder AEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that AEs occurring during ADHD treatment episodes are associated with significant healthcare costs. This highlights the potential of treatments with favorable safety profiles to alleviate the burden experienced by patients and the healthcare system.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with psychiatric comorbidities in adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a heterogeneous condition with extensive psychiatric comorbidities. ADHD has been associated with substantial clinical and economic burden; however, little is known about the incremental burden specifically attributable to psychiatric comorbidities of ADHD in adults. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of psychiatric comorbidities, specifically anxiety and depression, on health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs in treated adults with ADHD in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective case-cohort study was conducted. Adults with ADHD were identified in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (10/01/2015-09/30/2021). The index date was defined as the date of initiation of a randomly selected ADHD treatment. The baseline period was defined as the 6 months prior to the index date, and the study period as the 12 months following the index date. Patients with at least 1 diagnosis for anxiety and/or depression during both the baseline and study periods were classified in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort, whereas those without diagnoses for anxiety or depression at any time were classified in the ADHD-only cohort. Entropy balancing was used to create reweighted cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. All-cause HRU and health care costs were assessed during the study period and compared between cohorts using regression analyses. Cost analyses were also conducted in subgroups stratified by comorbid conditions. RESULTS: After reweighting, patients in the ADHD-only cohort (N = 276,906) and ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort (N = 217,944) had similar characteristics (mean age 34.1 years; 54.8% male). All-cause HRU was higher in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort than the ADHD-only cohort (incidence rate ratios for inpatient admissions: 4.5, emergency department visits: 1.8, outpatient visits: 2.0, and psychotherapy visits: 6.4; all P < 0.01). All-cause health care costs were more than 2 times higher in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort than the ADHD-only cohort (mean per-patient per-year [PPPY] costs in ADHD-only vs ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort: $5,335 vs $11,315; P < 0.01). Among the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort, average all-cause health care costs were $9,233, $10,651, and $15,610 PPPY among subgroup of patients with ADHD and only anxiety, only depression, and both anxiety and depression, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid anxiety and depression is associated with additional HRU and costs burden in patients with ADHD. Comanagement of these conditions is important and has the potential to alleviate the burden experienced by patients and the health care system.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with psychiatric comorbidities in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a claims-based case-cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been shown to pose considerable clinical and economic burden; however, research quantifying the excess burden attributable to common psychiatric comorbidities of ADHD among pediatric patients is scarce. This study assessed the impact of anxiety and depression on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs in pediatric patients with ADHD in the United States. METHODS: Patients with ADHD aged 6-17 years were identified in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (10/01/2015-09/30/2021). The index date was the date of initiation of a randomly selected ADHD treatment. Patients with ≥ 1 diagnosis for anxiety and/or depression during both the baseline (6 months pre-index) and study period (12 months post-index) were classified in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort; those without diagnoses for anxiety nor depression during both periods were classified in the ADHD-only cohort. Entropy balancing was used to create reweighted cohorts. All-cause HRU and healthcare costs during the study period were compared using regression analyses. Cost analyses were also performed in subgroups by comorbid conditions. RESULTS: The reweighted ADHD-only cohort (N = 204,723) and ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort (N = 66,231) had similar characteristics (mean age: 11.9 years; 72.8% male; 56.2% had combined inattentive and hyperactive ADHD type). The ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort had higher HRU than the ADHD-only cohort (incidence rate ratios for inpatient admissions: 10.3; emergency room visits: 1.6; outpatient visits: 2.3; specialist visits: 5.3; and psychotherapy visits: 6.1; all p < 0.001). The higher HRU translated to greater all-cause healthcare costs; the mean per-patient-per-year (PPPY) costs in the ADHD-only cohort vs. ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort was $3,988 vs. $8,682 (p < 0.001). All-cause healthcare costs were highest when both comorbidities were present; among patients with ADHD who had only anxiety, only depression, and both anxiety and depression, the mean all-cause healthcare costs were $7,309, $9,901, and $13,785 PPPY, respectively (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid anxiety and depression was associated with significantly increased risk of HRU and higher healthcare costs among pediatric patients with ADHD; the presence of both comorbid conditions resulted in 3.5 times higher costs relative to ADHD alone. These findings underscore the need to co-manage ADHD and psychiatric comorbidities to help mitigate the substantial burden borne by patients and the healthcare system.

Treatment-Free Interval: A Novel Approach to Assessing Real-World Treatment Effectiveness and Economic Impact Among Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea.

INTRODUCTION: Objective assessment of treatment effectiveness using real-world claims data is challenging. This study assessed treatment-free intervals (TFI) as a proxy for treatment effectiveness, and all-cause healthcare costs among adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) treated with rifaximin or eluxadoline in the USA. METHODS: Adult patients (18-64 years) with IBS-D and ≥ 1 rifaximin or eluxadoline prescription were identified in the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database (10/01/2015-12/31/2021) and classified into two mutually exclusive cohorts (i.e., rifaximin and eluxadoline). Index date was the date of rifaximin or eluxadoline initiation. Entropy-balanced baseline characteristics, TFI (periods of ≥ 30 consecutive days without IBS-D treatment), and healthcare costs were reported. Healthcare costs were compared between cohorts using mean cost differences. RESULTS: There were 7094 and 2161 patients in the rifaximin and eluxadoline cohorts, respectively. After balancing, baseline characteristics (mean age 44.1 years; female 72.4%) were similar between cohorts. A higher proportion of patients treated with rifaximin achieved a TFI of ≥ 30 days (76.2% vs. 66.7%), ≥ 60 days (67.0% vs. 47.0%), ≥ 90 days (61.0% vs. 38.7%), ≥ 180 days (51.7% vs. 31.0%), and ≥ 240 days (47.7% vs. 27.9%) compared to eluxadoline. Among patients with a TFI ≥ 30 days, mean TFI durations were 8.3 and 6.0 months for the rifaximin and eluxadoline cohorts. Mean all-cause healthcare costs were lower for rifaximin vs. eluxadoline ($18,316 vs. $23,437; p = 0.008), primarily driven by pharmacy costs ($7348 vs. $10,250; p < 0.001). In a simulated health plan of one million commercially insured lives, initiating 50% of patients on rifaximin instead of eluxadoline resulted in total cost savings of $2.1 million per year or $0.18 per-member-per-month. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study suggests that TFI is a meaningful surrogate measure of treatment effectiveness in IBS-D. Patients treated with rifaximin had longer treatment-free periods and lower healthcare costs than patients treated with eluxadoline.

Real-world clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease treated with vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world treatment persistence, dose escalation, rates of opportunistic or serious infections, and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving vedolizumab (VDZ) vs ustekinumab (UST) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective observational study in adults with CD initiated on VDZ or UST on/after 26 September 2016, was performed using the IBM Truven Health MarketScan databases (1 January 2009-30 September 2018). Rates of treatment persistence, dose escalation, opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters, and healthcare costs per patient per month (PPPM) were evaluated. Entropy balancing was used to balance patient characteristics between cohorts. Event rates were assessed using weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared between cohorts using log-rank tests. Healthcare costs were compared between cohorts using weighted 2-part models. RESULTS: 589 VDZ and 599 UST patients were included (172 [29.2%] and 117 [19.5%] were bio-naïve, respectively). After weighting, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. No significant difference in rates of treatment persistence (12-month: VDZ, 76.5%; UST, 82.1%; p = .17), dose escalation (12-month: VDZ, 29.3%; UST, 32.7%; p = .97), or opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters were observed between VDZ and UST. Total mean healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with VDZ vs UST (mean cost difference = -$5051 PPPM; p < .01). Findings were consistent in bio-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, similar treatment persistence, dose escalation, and rates of opportunistic or serious infections were observed with VDZ- and UST-treated patients with CD. However, VDZ was associated with a significantly lower cost outlay for healthcare systems.

Crohn's disease (CD) causes inflammation in the digestive system. Vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) are therapies for patients with CD. Little is known about the clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of VDZ versus UST in the real world in the United States. We used health claims data and found that VDZ and UST had comparable real-world clinical outcomes. After 12 months of treatment, the proportions of patients with CD who stayed on treatment and those who needed to increase therapy dose were similar with VDZ and UST. The rate of infection was also similar between the two groups of patients. However, the monthly healthcare costs were $5051 less for patients treated with VDZ than with UST. This was mainly due to the lower cost of VDZ, which was almost half of that of UST. The lower treatment costs with VDZ may provide substantial savings for the healthcare system and patients specifically. Future cost-effectiveness studies on VDZ and UST are needed to aid treatment selection for patients with CD.