Real-world relationship of early end points to survival end points in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Pathologic response has been shown to be a promising surrogate for survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. We examined the real-world relationship between these end  points in patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (CT/CRT). Methods: Electronic health records/medical charts were analyzed. Overall and event-free survival (OS/EFS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier stratified by pathologic response. Associations between the end  points were assessed by Cox analyses. Results: A total of 425 patients were selected for the study; 147 and 278 received CT and CRT, respectively. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was associated with longer OS (adjusted HR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.29-0.85) and EFS (adjusted HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.28-0.68) versus no pCR, and EFS was associated with OS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38, 0.69). Conclusion: In patients receiving neoadjuvant CT/CRT, pCR and EFS were associated with improved survival in this real-world dataset.

Real-world treatment patterns in resectable (stages I-III) non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review.

Aim: The aim of this systematic literature review was to describe treatment patterns in nonmetastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Eligible studies were multicentered (>50 patients) and conducted after 2000 in North America, Europe and Asia. Results: Twenty studies met the eligibility criteria. Based on US and Canadian studies in the resectable population, the proportion of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy increased with increasing stage (i.e., from <3% in stage I to about 40% in stage III and from 15% in stage I to 30% in stage III, respectively). Within the resectable population, the breakdown between bimodal and trimodal therapy was variable, suggesting that clinical practice is not uniform. Conclusion: Overall, studies were heterogeneous, precluding data extrapolation across regions. Despite heterogeneity and limited evidence, this review suggested an increase in neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy with increasing stage, generally in line with treatment guidelines.

This literature review aimed to describe the treatment patterns in nonmetastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. This review was performed according to the highest methodological standards and searched published and unpublished records of stages I­III non-small-cell lung cancer treatment in North America, Europe and Asia. A limited number of studies were identified showing that in North America treatment with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) increased with stage. Identified studies in all regions showed that the treatment received, such as bimodal with surgery and chemotherapy compared with trimodal with surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, was quite variable and that practice was not uniform. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous and data could not be extrapolated to practice across all regions. However, the studies suggested an increase in neoadjuvant and adjuvant usage with increasing stage, which is generally in line with treatment guidelines.

Pathological response in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy are needed to provide earlier treatment outcome indicators and accelerate drug approval. This study's main objectives were to investigate the association among pathological complete response, major pathological response, event-free survival and overall survival and to determine whether treatment effects on pathological complete response and event-free survival correlate with treatment effects on overall survival. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify neoadjuvant studies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Analysis at the patient level using frequentist and Bayesian random effects (hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival or event-free survival by pathological complete response or major pathological response status, yes vs no) and at the trial level using weighted least squares regressions (hazard ratio for overall survival or event-free survival vs pathological complete response, by treatment arm) were performed. RESULTS: In both meta-analyses, pathological complete response yielded favorable overall survival compared with no pathological complete response (frequentist, 20 studies and 6530 patients: HR = 0.49, 95% confidence interval = 0.42 to 0.57; Bayesian, 19 studies and 5988 patients: HR = 0.48, 95% probability interval = 0.43 to 0.55) and similarly for major pathological response (frequentist, 12 studies and 1193 patients: HR = 0.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.29 to 0.44; Bayesian, 11 studies and 1018 patients: HR = 0.33, 95% probability interval = 0.26 to 0.42). Across subgroups, estimates consistently showed better overall survival or event-free survival in pathological complete response or major pathological response compared with no pathological complete response or no major pathological response. Trial-level analyses showed a moderate to strong correlation between event-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios (R2 = 0.7159) but did not show a correlation between treatment effects on pathological complete response and overall survival or event-free survival. CONCLUSION: There was a strong and consistent association between pathological response and survival and a moderate to strong correlation between event-free survival and overall survival following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Real-world treatment patterns and survival outcomes for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer in Spain: a nationwide cohort study.

Background: The burden of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains high in Spain, with lung cancer accounting for 20% of cancer-related deaths annually. Programs such as the Spanish Thoracic Tumour Registry (TTR) and the global I-O Optimise initiative have been developed to observe patients in clinical practice with the aim of improving outcomes. This analysis examined treatment patterns and survival in patients with stage III NSCLC from the TTR. These patients represent a heterogenous group with complex treatment pathways. Methods: The TTR is an ongoing, observational, prospective, and retrospective cohort multicentre study (NCT02941458) that follows patients with thoracic cancer in Spain. Adults aged ≥18 years with stage IIIA/IIIB NSCLC enrolled in the TTR between 01 Jan 2010 and 31 Oct 2019 were included in this analysis. Initial treatment received was described by cancer stage and histology (squamous and non-squamous NSCLC). Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated over a 5-year period. Results: A total of 1,838 patients were included in the cohort, including 1,082 with stage IIIA (58.9%) and 756 with stage IIIB (41.1%). Median follow-up was 18.3 months. The median age of patients was 66 years, and most had non-squamous NSCLC (54.0%), were male (81.2%), and were active or former smokers (93.4%). Overall, 26.3% of patients received surgical resection (37.0% for stage IIIA and 11.1% for stage IIIB). The most frequent initial treatment received was concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage IIIA (30.2%) and stage IIIB (37.0%) patients. Median OS was lower in patients with stage IIIB than stage IIIA (28 vs. 37 months) disease and was lower for patients with squamous than non-squamous histology (19 vs. 26 months). Median PFS and OS varied when patients were stratified by initial treatment. Conclusions: This TTR analysis describes the clinical reality surrounding the initial management and survival outcomes for stage III NSCLC in Spain and presents survival outcomes comparable with other real-world evidence. It provides insights into the diverse approaches used before the availability of immunotherapies and targeted treatments in the non-metastatic NSCLC setting.

Epidemiology and outcomes of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in hospitalized patients.

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) are among the most rapidly increasing reasons for hospitalization. To describe inpatients with regard to patient characteristics, cSSTI origin, appropriateness of initial antibiotics, and outcomes, we performed a retrospective cohort study in patients hospitalized for cSSTI. To identify independent predictors of outcomes, we performed multivariate analyses. Of 1,096 eligible patients, 48.7% had health care-associated (HCA) cSSTI and 51.3% had community-acquired (CA) cSSTI. After adjustment for baseline variables, hospital length of stay (LOS) was longer for HCA than for CA cSSTI (difference, 2.1 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.5; P < 0.05). Other covariates associated with a longer LOS were need for dialysis (regression coefficient ± standard error, 4.5 ± 1.1) and diabetic wound diagnosis (2.6 ± 1.0) (all P < 0.05). In the subset with culture-positive cSSTI within 24 h of admission, the most common pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (298/449 [66.4%]), of which 74.8% (223/298) were methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Eighty-three patients (18.5%) received inappropriate initial antibiotics. After adjustment for other variables, the following were associated with inappropriate initial therapy: direct admission to hospital (not via emergency department), cSSTI caused by MRSA or mixed pathogens, and cSSTI caused by pathogens other than S. aureus or streptococci (all P < 0.05). We did not find an association between inappropriate therapy and outcomes, except in the subset with ulcers (adjusted odds ratio, 11.8; 95% CI, 1.3 to 111.1; P = 0.03). More studies are needed to examine the impact of HCA cSSTI and inappropriate initial therapy on outcomes.

A prospective, multicenter, observational study of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in hospitalized patients: clinical characteristics, medical treatment, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) occur frequently, but limited data do not allow any consensus on an optimal treatment strategy. We designed this prospective, multicenter, observational study to to explore the current epidemiology, treatment, and resulting clinical outcomes of cSSTIs to help develop strategies to potentially improve outcomes. METHODS: From June 2008 to December 2009 we enrolled a pre-specified number of adults treated in 56 U.S. hospitals with intravenous antibiotic(s) for any of the following cSSTIs: diabetic foot infection (DFI); surgical site infection (SSI); deep soft tissue abscess (DSTA); or, cellulitis. Investigators treated all patients per their usual practice during the study and collected data on a standardized form. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,033 patients (DFI 27%; SSI 32%; DSTA 14%; cellulitis 27%; mean age 54 years; 54% male), of which 74% had healthcare-associated risk factors. At presentation, 89% of patients received initial empiric therapy with intravenous antibiotics; ~20% of these patients had this empiric regimen changed or discontinued based on culture and sensitivity results. Vancomycin was the most frequently used initial intravenous antibiotic, ordered in 61% of cases. During their stay 44% of patients underwent a surgical procedure related to the study infection, usually incision and drainage or debridement. The mean length of stay was 7.1 days, ranging from 5.8 (DSTA) to 8.1 (SSI). CONCLUSION: Our findings from this large prospective observational study that characterized patients with cSSTIs from diverse US inpatient populations provide useful information on the current epidemiology, clinical management practices and outcomes of this common infection.

Risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and associated costs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who initiated apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the United States medicare population: updated analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated comparison of the risk and cost of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding between direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC: apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) and warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. METHODS: Adults (≥65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014 were selected from the Medicare database and propensity scores matched 1:1 to balance baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs. warfarin. Two-part models were used to compare the stroke/SE- and major bleeding-related medical costs in each matched cohort. RESULTS: Of the 264,479 eligible patients, 38,740 apixaban-warfarin pairs, 76,677 rivaroxaban-warfarin pairs, and 20,955 dabigatran-warfarin pairs were matched. Apixaban (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.46; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.38-0.56) and rivaroxaban (HR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.63-0.80) were associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE compared to warfarin. Apixaban (HR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.51-0.63) and dabigatran (HR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.70-0.90) were associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding; rivaroxaban (HR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.07-1.21) was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin. Compared to warfarin, apixaban and rivaroxaban had significantly lower stroke/SE-related medical costs; and apixaban and dabigatran had significantly lower major bleeding-related medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis showed DOACs to be associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding, and lower medical costs compared to warfarin. Among them, only apixaban appears to be associated with a significantly lower risk of all three outcomes collectively: stroke/SE, major bleeding, and lower related medical costs compared to warfarin.

A Real-World Observational Study of Hospitalization and Health Care Costs Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Prescribed Oral Anticoagulants in the U.S. Medicare Population.

This article has been corrected. Please see J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 2020;26(5):682 BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban-are at least as effective and safe as warfarin for the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few studies have compared oral anticoagulants (OACs) among elderly patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospitalization risks (all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related) and associated health care costs among elderly nonvalvular AF (NVAF) patients in the Medicare population who initiated warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014. Patients initiating each OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographic and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of hospitalization of each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear models and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs between matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 264,479 eligible patients, 77,480 warfarin-apixaban, 41,580 dabigatran-apixaban, and 77,640 rivaroxaban-apixaban patients were matched. The OACs were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.23-1.31, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08-1.18, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.18-1.26, P < 0.001) and were associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to stroke/SE (warfarin: HR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.80-2.64, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.12-1.88, P = 0.006; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.14-1.71, P = 0.001). Also, the OACs were associated with significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to MB-related conditions compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.59-1.95, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.23-1.68, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.71-2.09, P < 0.001). Compared with apixaban, warfarin ($3,577 vs. $3,183, P < 0.001); dabigatran ($3,217 vs. $3,060, P < 0.001); and rivaroxaban ($3,878 vs. $3,180, P < 0.001) had significantly higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month. Patients initiating the OACs had significantly higher MB-related medical costs compared with apixaban: warfarin ($472 vs. $269; P < 0.001); dabigatran ($364 vs. $245, P < 0.001); and rivaroxaban ($493 vs. $270, P < 0.001). Warfarin was also associated with higher stroke/SE-related medical costs compared with apixaban ($124 vs. $62, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that among elderly NVAF patients in the Medicare population, apixaban was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related hospitalizations compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Accordingly, apixaban showed significantly lower all-cause health care costs and MB-related medical costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Amin is an employee of the University of California, Irvine, and was a paid consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. He has served as a consultant and/or speaker for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Keshishian and Zhang are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, and Liu are employees of Pfizer, with ownership of stocks in Pfizer. Le, Rosenblatt, Nadkarni, and Vo are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. Rosenblatt and Vo have ownership of stocks in Bristol Myers Squibb. Baser has no conflicts to disclose.

Systematic literature review of treatment patterns for venous thromboembolism patients during transitions from inpatient to post-discharge settings.

INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as viable alternatives to traditional treatments such as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The objective of this review was to summarize evidence on the use of DOACs and VKAs to treat VTE in the US for patients transitioning from inpatient to post-discharge settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the VTE literature identified studies published in English (January 1, 2011-December 31, 2016) that reported inpatient and post-discharge treatments and discharge location. Two reviewers screened abstracts, abstracted information from included studies, and assessed the quality of the study methodology and reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included (24 clinical and 25 economic). A limited number of studies (eight clinical and three economic) examined VTE treatment patterns during transitions of care from inpatient to post-discharge settings, irrespective of anticoagulant (eg, DOAC, warfarin, heparin), and < 25% of all studies reported a post-discharge location. Three clinical studies that reported inpatient and outpatient treatment found better patient outcomes with DOAC vs warfarin. Fourteen economic studies reported that DOACs were associated with shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and lower direct costs vs warfarin. No studies reported indirect costs. DISCUSSION: Although DOACs are associated with shorter LOS, lower costs, and better patient outcomes vs VKAs, it appears in one study that only a small percentage of patients with stable VTE who are discharged to home may be receiving DOACs. CONCLUSION: These findings identified the potential areas of opportunity to improve the management of VTE through coordination of care from the inpatient to the outpatient settings.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Canagliflozin 300 mg Versus Dapagliflozin 10 mg Added to Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Agents that inhibit sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2), including canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, are approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). SGLT2 inhibition lowers blood glucose by increasing urinary glucose excretion, which leads to a mild osmotic diuresis and a net loss of calories that are associated with reductions in body weight and blood pressure. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin 300 mg versus dapagliflozin 10 mg in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin in the United States. METHODS: A 30-year cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the validated Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM) from the perspective of the third-party health care system in the United States. Patient demographics, biomarker values, and treatment effects for the ECHO-T2DM model were sourced primarily from a network meta-analysis (NMA) that included studies of canagliflozin and dapagliflozin in patients with T2DM on background metformin. Costs were derived from sources specific to the United States. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses that varied key model parameters were conducted. RESULTS: Canagliflozin 300 mg dominated dapagliflozin 10 mg as an add-on to metformin over 30 years, with an estimated cost offset of $13,991 and a quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.08 versus dapagliflozin 10 mg. Results were driven by the better HbA1c lowering achieved with canagliflozin, which translated to less need for insulin rescue therapy. Findings from sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that canagliflozin 300 mg is likely to provide better health outcomes at a lower overall cost than dapagliflozin 10 mg in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin from the perspective of the United States health care system. FUNDING: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and Janssen Global Services, LLC.

Real-world comparison of all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations due to stroke and major bleeding, and costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients prescribed oral anticoagulants in a US health plan.

AIMS: To compare the risk of all-cause hospitalization and hospitalizations due to stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding, as well as associated healthcare costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NVAF patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were selected from the OptumInsight Research Database from January 1, 2013-September 30, 2015. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between apixaban and each oral anticoagulant. Cox models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding. Generalized linear and 2-part models were used to compare healthcare costs. RESULTS: Of the 47,634 eligible patients, 8,328 warfarin-apixaban pairs, 3,557 dabigatran-apixaban pairs, and 8,440 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Compared to apixaban, warfarin patients were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21-1.40) as well as stroke/SE-related (HR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.23-2.07) and major bleeding-related (HR = 1.95; 95% CI = 1.60-2.39) hospitalization; rivaroxaban patients were associated with a higher risk of all-cause (HR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.07-1.24) and major bleeding-related hospitalization (HR = 1.71; 95% CI = 1.39-2.10); and dabigatran patients were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding hospitalization (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.02-2.10). Warfarin patients had significantly higher major bleeding-related and total all-cause healthcare costs compared to apixaban patients. Rivaroxaban patients had significantly higher major bleeding-related costs compared to apixaban patients. No significant results were found for the remaining comparisons. LIMITATIONS: No causal relationships can be concluded, and unobserved confounders may exist in this retrospective database analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a significantly higher risk of hospitalization (all-cause, stroke/SE, and major bleeding) associated with warfarin, a significantly higher risk of major bleeding hospitalization associated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, and a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization associated with rivaroxaban compared to apixaban. Lower major bleeding-related costs were observed for apixaban patients compared to warfarin and rivaroxaban patients.

Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban versus Warfarin as Outpatient Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in U.S. Clinical Practice.

In the AMPLIFY clinical trial, apixaban was non-inferior to warfarin plus subcutaneous enoxaparin bridge therapy in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and was associated with significantly less bleeding. This study evaluated their comparative effectiveness and safety in routine clinical practice. A matched-cohort design and data from four U.S. private health care claims databases were employed. Study population comprised patients who initiated outpatient treatment with apixaban versus warfarin (plus parenteral anticoagulant bridge therapy) within 30 days of their initial VTE episode; apixaban and warfarin patients were matched on age, characteristics of VTE episode, study database and propensity score. Major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding and recurrent VTE during the 180-day (maximum) follow-up period were compared using shared frailty models. During mean follow-up of 143 days among apixaban patients (n = 17,878) and 152 days among warfarin patients (n = 17,878), incidence proportions for apixaban versus warfarin, respectively, were 1.7% versus 2.3% for major bleeding, 7.0% versus 9.4% for CRNM bleeding and 2.3% versus 2.9% for recurrent VTE. In shared frailty models, risks of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.87), CRNM bleeding (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.71-0.83) and recurrent VTE (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.70-0.91) were lower for apixaban versus warfarin. In this large-scale evaluation of VTE patients receiving outpatient treatment with apixaban or warfarin in U.S. clinical practice, risks of major bleeding, CRNM bleeding and recurrent VTE were significantly lower among patients who received apixaban.

A Real-World Observational Study of Hospitalization and Health Care Costs Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Prescribed Oral Anticoagulants in the U.S. Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban-are at least as effective and safe as warfarin for the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few studies have compared oral anticoagulants (OACs) among elderly patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospitalization risks (all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related) and associated health care costs among elderly nonvalvular AF (NVAF) patients in the Medicare population who initiated warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014. Patients initiating each OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographic and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of hospitalization of each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear models and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs between matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 186,132 eligible patients, 41,606 warfarin-apixaban, 30,836 dabigatran-apixaban, and 41,608 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. The OACs were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.27-1.38, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.11-1.23, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.22-1.32, P < 0.001) and were associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to stroke/SE (warfarin: HR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.92-3.29, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.60-3.13, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.31-2.30, P < 0.001). Also, the OACs were associated with significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to MB-related conditions compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.71-2.23, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.25-1.76, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.91-2.48, P < 0.001). Compared with apixaban, warfarin ($3,747 vs. $3,061, P < 0.001); dabigatran ($3,230 vs. $2,951, P < 0.001); and rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs. $3,060, P < 0.001) had significantly higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month. Patients initiating the OACs also had significantly higher stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs compared with apixaban: warfarin (stroke/SE = $135 vs. $60, P = 0.001; MB = $537 vs. $286, P < 0.001); dabigatran (stroke/SE = $94 vs. $62, P = 0.045; MB = $373 vs. $277, P = 0.010); and rivaroxaban (stroke/SE = $91 vs. $60, P = 0.008; MB = $524 vs. $287, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that among elderly NVAF patients in the Medicare population, apixaban was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related hospitalizations compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Accordingly, apixaban showed significantly lower all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Amin is an employee of the University of California, Irvine, and was a paid consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. Keshishian and Zhang are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, and Liu are employees of Pfizer, with ownership of stocks in Pfizer. Le, Rosenblatt, Nadkarni, and Vo are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Rosenblatt and Vo have ownership of stocks in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Baser has no conflicts to disclose.

Treatment and discharge patterns among patients hospitalized with non-valvular atrial fibrillation transitioning from the inpatient to outpatient setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate inpatient oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment, discharge location, and post-discharge OAC treatment for patients hospitalized with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective study using claims data linked to hospital electronic health records (EHR). Patients (n = 2,484) were hospitalized with a primary (38%) or secondary (62%) diagnosis of AF without evidence of mitral valvular heart disease or valve replacement between January 2009 and September 2013. Inpatient OAC treatment was identified from EHR data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inpatient and post-discharge OAC treatment [direct OAC (DOAC; apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran), warfarin, no OAC] and discharge location (long-term care, home health-care, home self-care). RESULTS: Mean age was 72.6 years, 61.2% were male, and 89.5% had a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Overall, 6.4% received a DOAC, 38.0% warfarin, and 55.6% no OAC during hospitalization. Compared to other treatment groups, patients receiving DOAC were younger and more likely to be male. The majority (72.2%) were discharged to home health-care, 13.2% home self-care, and 6.0% long-term care. Among patients who were treated with warfarin during hospitalization, 40.3% filled a warfarin prescription within 30 days post-discharge, whereas among patients who were treated with a DOAC, 52.4% filled a DOAC prescription within 30 days post-discharge. Some NVAF patients not treated with an OAC during hospitalization filled a prescription for warfarin (18.0%) or DOAC (1.9%) within 30 days post-discharge. Results were similar among patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients hospitalized for NVAF were discharged to home support, and the majority did not have OAC treatment during hospitalization or the 30 days post-discharge. Additional investigation should be conducted on trends beyond 30 days post-hospitalization, and the reasons for not receiving anticoagulation therapy in patients at moderate-to-severe risk of stroke or systemic embolism. Helping to avoid preventable strokes is an important goal for public health.

Risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding and associated costs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who initiated apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the United States Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk and cost of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding between each direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. METHODS: Patients (≥65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Medicare database from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014. Patients initiating each DOAC were matched 1:1 to warfarin patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs. warfarin. Two-part models were used to compare the stroke/SE- and major-bleeding-related medical costs between matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 186,132 eligible patients, 20,803 apixaban-warfarin pairs, 52,476 rivaroxaban-warfarin pairs, and 16,731 dabigatran-warfarin pairs were matched. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31, 0.53) and rivaroxaban (HR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.63, 0.83) were significantly associated with lower risk of stroke/SE compared to warfarin. Apixaban (HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.44, 0.58) and dabigatran (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.69, 0.91) were significantly associated with lower risk of major bleeding; rivaroxaban (HR = 1.17; 95% CI 1.10, 1.26) was significantly associated with higher risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin. Compared to warfarin, apixaban ($63 vs. $131) and rivaroxaban ($93 vs. $139) had significantly lower stroke/SE-related medical costs; apixaban ($292 vs. $529) and dabigatran ($369 vs. $450) had significantly lower major bleeding-related medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Among the DOACs in the study, only apixaban is associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding and lower related medical costs compared to warfarin.

Warfarin Management and Outcomes in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Within an Integrated Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is a common treatment option to manage patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in clinical practice. Understanding current pharmacist-led anticoagulation clinic management patterns and associated outcomes is important for quality improvement; however, currently little evidence associating outcomes with management patterns exists. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe warfarin management patterns and (b) evaluate associations between warfarin treatment and clinical outcomes for patients with NVAF in an integrated health care system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among NVAF patients with warfarin therapy between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011, using Kaiser Permanente Southern California data, and followed until December 31, 2013. Management patterns related to international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring, anticoagulation clinic pharmacist intervention (consultation), and warfarin dose adjustments were investigated along with yearly attrition rates, time-in-therapeutic ranges (TTRs), and clinical outcomes (stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding). Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine associations between TTR and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 32,074 NVAF patients on warfarin treatment were identified and followed for a median of 3.8 years. About half (49%) of the patients were newly initiating warfarin therapy. INR monitoring and pharmacist interventions were conducted roughly every 3 weeks after 6 months of warfarin treatment. Sixty-three percent of the study population had ≥ 1 warfarin dose adjustments with a mean (SD) of 6.7 (6.3) annual dose adjustments. Warfarin dose adjustments occurred at a median of 1 day (interquartile ranges [IQR] 1-3) after the INR measurement. Yearly attrition rate was from 3.3% to 6.3% during the follow-up, and median (IQR) TTR was 61% (46%-73%). Patients who received frequent INR monitoring (≥ 27 times per year), pharmacist interventions (≥ 24 times per year), or frequently adjusted warfarin dose (≥ 11 times per year) consistently showed poor TTRs (mean TTR for the highest quartiles was 45.3%-48.3%). A higher TTR was associated with a lower risk of clinical outcomes regardless of frequency of INR monitoring, pharmacist interventions, or number of dose adjustments. Patients whose TTRs were < 65%, even with frequent pharmacist interventions, had similar stroke or systemic embolism event rates, as compared with patients with TTRs < 65% and less frequent interventions (1.88 vs. 1.54 stroke or systemic embolism rates per 100 person-years, respectively, P = 0.78). The lowest TTR quartile (< 46%) was associated with a 3 times higher risk of stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.19, 95% CI = 2.71-3.77) and a 2 times higher risk of major bleeding (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.96-2.24) compared with the highest TTR quartile (≥ 73%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite close monitoring with timely warfarin dose adjustments, there were still a substantial number of challenging patients whose TTRs were suboptimal despite a higher number of pharmacist interventions. These patients eventually experienced more stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding events among NVAF patients managed by anticoagulation clinics. New individualized treatment or management strategies for patients who are not able to reach optimal therapeutic ranges are necessary to improve outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This research and manuscript were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer. Authors from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, review/revision of the manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. An received a grant for research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Niu, Rashid, and Zheng received a grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer to their institutions for salary reimbursement. Vo, Singh, and Aranda are employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bruno was employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of this study. Mendes and Dills are employed by Pfizer, and Mendes was a member of the Pfizer Cardiovascular and Metabolic Field Medical Team during the time of this study. Lang, Jazdzewski, and Le have no known conflicts of interest to report. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by An and Rashid, along with the other authors. Niu took the lead in data collection, along with Zheng, and data interpretation was performed by An, along with Mendes and Dills, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by An and revised by Mendes, Dills, Vo, Singh, Bruno, and Aranda, along with Lang, Le, and Jazdezewski. Part of this study's findings was presented at the CHEST 2015 Annual Meeting in Montreal, Canada, on October 28, 2015.

Transitions of Care for People with Type 2 Diabetes: Utilization of Antihyperglycemic Agents Pre- and Post-Hospitalization.

INTRODUCTION: Little research to date has examined antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) utilization among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) around transitions of care from inpatient to outpatient settings. Discontinuity of care between inpatient and outpatient settings has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes, so a better understanding of AHA treatment patterns is important. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed AHA utilization among a sample of United States adults with a T2DM diagnosis listed on an inpatient admission during 2010-2012 in the MarketScan(®) Hospital Drug database (Truven Health Analytics). AHA use while hospitalized was measured from inpatient medication administration records in that database. AHA use pre- and post-hospitalization was assessed from outpatient retail and mail order pharmacy claims in the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, which contain de-identified insurance claims from large employers and health plans. The hospital and claims databases are linked, allowing patients to be followed across transitions of care. RESULTS: The study sample (N = 8144) was 53% male, with a mean age of 66 years. Twenty-one percent had no T2DM diagnosis or claims for AHAs in the 90-day pre-hospitalization period suggesting they may have been newly diagnosed at the time of admission. Most (83%) patients used AHAs while hospitalized, but the proportions with AHA claims 30 days pre- and post-hospitalization were only 53% and 40%, respectively. Biguanides and sulfonylureas were the most common outpatient agents. Most (70%) patients who had no AHA utilization pre-hospitalization continued to have no AHA utilization post-hospitalization. About half the patients with AHA claims pre-hospitalization did not have any AHA claims post-discharge. CONCLUSION: Further research is warranted to explore the reasons why AHAs are not continued following hospital discharge. Inadequate treatment of T2DM remains an issue before and after hospitalization; inpatient stays represent an important and frequently missed opportunity to assess and optimize care for these patients. FUNDING: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.

Comparison of hospital length of stay and hospitalization costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with apixaban or warfarin: An early view.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify and compare hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs between hospitalized non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated with either apixaban or warfarin via a large claims database. METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized with AF were selected from the Premier Perspective Claims Database (01JAN2013-31MARCH2014). Patients with evidence of valvular heart disease, valve replacement procedures, or pregnancy during the index hospitalization were excluded. Patients treated with apixaban or warfarin during hospitalization were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for baseline imbalances between patients treated with apixaban or warfarin. Primary outcomes were hospital LOS (days), post-medication administration LOS, and index hospitalization costs, and were compared using paired t-tests in the matched sample. RESULTS: Before PSM, 2894 apixaban and 124,174 warfarin patients were identified. Patients treated with warfarin were older and sicker compared to those treated with apixaban. After applying PSM, a total of 2886 patients were included in each cohort, and baseline characteristics were balanced. The mean (standard deviation [SD] and median) hospital LOS was significantly (p = 0.002) shorter for patients treated with apixaban for 5.1 days (5.7 and 3) compared to warfarin for 5.5 days (4.8 and 4). The trend appeared consistent in the hospital LOS from point of apixaban or warfarin administration to discharge (4.5 vs 4.7 days, p = 0.051). Patients administered apixaban incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs compared to those administered warfarin ($11,262 vs $12,883; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among NVAF patients, apixaban treatment was associated with significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower costs when compared to warfarin treatment.

Drug persistency of two cholinesterase inhibitors: rivastigmine versus donepezil in elderly patients with Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVES: To compare persistency rates and persistency days in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) who initiated therapy with either rivastigmine or donepezil, and to identify factors influencing persistency in a real-world setting. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study used data collected by MarketScan from 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2002. Patients were included if they were newly diagnosed with AD and filled at least one prescription for rivastigmine or donepezil between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2001, were > or =65 years of age on the index prescription date, and had continuous health and prescription insurance during the entire study period. Patients were excluded if they filled a prescription for any cholinesterase inhibitor during the 18 months prior to initiation of the study drugs. Patients who refilled their initial cholinesterase inhibitor prescription within a permissible gap of 60 days after depleting the drug supply from the prior prescription were considered to be persistent. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the persistency definition. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine persistency rates across time and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate relative risks of discontinuation or switch with adjustment for other covariates, and to identify factors significantly influencing persistency of the study drugs. RESULTS: Of the newly treated AD patients, the proportion of rivastigmine and donepezil patients who continued their medication was the same (47%; p = 0.5). On average, rivastigmine users continuously used their medication for 234 days (median 312 days) while those taking donepezil used their medication for 235 days (median 315 days) [p = 0.91]. Patients were more likely to discontinue or switch their initial cholinesterase inhibitor if they used a central nervous system (CNS) medication before initiation of therapy (relative risk [RR] = 1.23; 95% CI 1.01, 1.51 without adjustment for study variables; RR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.05, 1.60 with adjustment for study variables). On the other hand, patients were less likely to discontinue their cholinesterase inhibitor if they visited their physician office frequently (RR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.18, 0.32 without adjustment; RR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.17, 0.30 with adjustment) or if they were hospitalised after initiation of their cholinesterase inhibitor therapy (RR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.39, 0.91 without adjustment; RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.42, 0.99 with adjustment). CONCLUSION: Patients who were newly diagnosed with AD and initiated therapy with either rivastigmine or donepezil had similar levels of persistency with their initial AD therapy in a real-world setting.

The health care and productivity costs of back and neck pain in a multi-employer sample of utility industry employees.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost of back and/or neck (B/N) pain among predominantly rural employees insured through an employee benefits trust. METHODS: Eligible employees had 1 year or more of medical coverage and completed a survey subsequently linked to their claims data. B/N pain costs consisted of medical and pharmacy claims, over-the-counter expenses, and presenteeism and absenteeism costs valued according to median occupational earnings. RESULTS: Of 1342 eligible employees, 52.7% currently had B/N pain of which 87.9% was chronic. The average annualized cost of B/N pain per employee was $1727; 56.1% was due to lost productivity. Covered medical care was utilized by 35.6% of employees, 55.7% used pharmacy care, and 71.6% purchased uncovered over-the-counter pain medication. CONCLUSIONS: Many covered employees did not use formal care. The effect of care choices on productivity costs requires closer scrutiny.