Factors associated with time to EGFR TKI treatment in patients with non-squamous metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Assess factors associated with EGFR TKI initiation among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Patients & methods: Medicare Part D patients diagnosed with non-squamous mNSCLC and starting an EGFR TKI within 1 year of diagnosis were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Associations between patient characteristics and time from diagnosis to treatment initiation (time-to-treatment [TTT]) were analyzed. Results: Among the sample (n = 890), the patients who were younger, African-American or from rural communities had significantly longer TTT. Patients who did not receive surgery, who were Asian and those with brain metastases had significantly shorter TTT. Conclusion: Patient demographics and clinical characteristics may affect timeliness of EGFR TKI treatment for mNSCLC. Future research should examine potential barriers to treatment.

This study aimed to identify factors that may affect the time to initiate treatment with a product in the EGFR TKI class of drugs for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). We used an anonymized database that combines health information on cancer patients (SEER) with insurance claims information for Medicare Part D patients. Our study included 890 patients. We found that patients who were younger, African­American or from rural communities had longer times to starting treatment. Patients who did not receive surgery, who were Asian and those with cancer that had spread to the brain had notably shorter times to starting treatment. Further research should examine potential barriers that may contribute to treatment initiation delay.

Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary clinical practice: Results from the PROMETHEUS study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the frequency of use and association between prasugrel and outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice. METHODS: PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational registry of acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States that maintained a prospective PCI registry for patient outcomes. The primary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events at 90days, a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Major bleeding was defined as any bleeding requiring hospitalization or blood transfusion. Hazard ratios (HRs) were generated using multivariable Cox regression and stratified by the propensity to treat with prasugrel. RESULTS: Of 19,914 patients (mean age 64.4years, 32% female), 4,058 received prasugrel (20%) and 15,856 received clopidogrel (80%). Prasugrel-treated patients were younger with fewer comorbid risk factors compared with their counterparts receiving clopidogrel. At 90days, there was a significant association between prasugrel use and lower major adverse cardiovascular event (5.7% vs 9.6%, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.67, P<.0001) and bleeding (1.9% vs 2.9%, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83, P<.001). After propensity stratification, associations were attenuated and no longer significant for either outcome. Results remained consistent using different approaches to adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary clinical practice, patients receiving prasugrel tend to have a lower-risk profile compared with those receiving clopidogrel. The lower ischemic and bleeding events associated with prasugrel use were no longer evident after accounting for these baseline differences.

Potential effects of reclassifying CKD as a coronary heart disease risk equivalent in the US population.

BACKGROUND: Persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for cardiovascular disease events, but are not classified as such in current US cholesterol treatment guidelines. We examined potential effects of modified guidelines in which CKD was considered a "coronary heart disease (CHD) risk equivalent" for risk stratification. STUDY DESIGN: Nationally representative cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 4,823 adults 20 years or older from the 2007-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. PREDICTORS: Cardiovascular risk stratification based on current US cholesterol treatment guidelines and 2 simulated scenarios in which CKD stages 3-5 or CKD stages 1-5 were considered a CHD risk equivalent. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of persons with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol at levels above treatment targets and above the threshold for lipid-lowering therapy initiation, based on current guidelines and the 2 simulated scenarios. RESULTS: Under current guidelines, 55.1 million adults in 2010 did not achieve the target LDL cholesterol goal. Of these, 25.2 million had sufficiently elevated levels to meet recommendations for initiating lipid-lowering therapy; 12.1 million were receiving this therapy but remained above goal. When CKD stages 3-5 were considered a CHD risk equivalent, 59.2 million persons were above target LDL cholesterol goals, with 28.5 million and 13.3 million meriting therapy initiation and intensification, respectively. When CKD stages 1-5 were considered a CHD risk equivalent, 65.2 million adults were above goal, with 33.9 million and 14.4 million meriting therapy initiation and intensification, respectively. LIMITATIONS: CKD and LDL cholesterol defined using a single laboratory value. CONCLUSIONS: Many adults in the United States currently do not meet recommended goals for LDL cholesterol levels. Modifying the current cholesterol guidelines to include CKD as a CHD risk equivalent would lead to a substantial increase in both the number of persons with levels above LDL cholesterol treatment targets and those recommended to initiate lipid-lowering therapy.

Treatment Patterns and Resource Use After Osimertinib Discontinuation in Patients with EGFR + Metastatic NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Current treatment guidelines for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) recommend EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as the standard of care for first-line treatment, with third-generation osimertinib the preferred choice. However, most patients develop resistance to targeted therapy, and subsequent systemic chemotherapy is recommended. The aim of this study was to characterize the subsequent line of therapy (LOT) following osimertinib in patients with EGFR-mNSCLC. METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims of adults who initiated a subsequent LOT (index) after initial osimertinib discontinuation between November 2015 and September 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients met the inclusion criteria. After metastatic diagnosis, 22.2% and 49.6% of patients were treated with osimertinib in the first and second line, respectively. After osimertinib discontinuation, most patients were treated with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen (57%), of which 40.3% included immuno-oncology therapy. Reuse or continuation of EGFR TKIs was also common (24%). Overall, the median time to treatment discontinuation for the index LOT was 2.4 months. Proportions of patients with ≥ 1 inpatient or emergency department visit were 31.9% and 35.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of the LOT following osimertinib was short and associated with tolerability issues underscoring a high unmet need for new therapies to address EGFR TKI resistance.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients with Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Without Actionable Genomic Alterations Previously Treated with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, timely molecular testing is essential to determine the appropriate course of therapy. Initial treatment with platinum chemotherapy and/or an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) is the standard of care for patients without actionable genomic alterations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, no actionable genomic alterations, and with prior ICI and platinum-based chemotherapy in a community oncology setting. METHODS: This retrospective observational study examined electronic health records from adult patients with an initial metastatic non-small cell lung cancer diagnosis without actionable genomic alterations from 2017 to 2019. Patients had received a subsequent line of therapy (LOT) [index] after discontinuing platinum-based chemotherapy plus an ICI in the previous one or two LOTs. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were analyzed descriptively. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Among the study population (n = 961), the most common index LOT regimens were non-platinum-based chemotherapies (57.3%), platinum-based chemotherapies (12.9%), ICI-based chemotherapies (12.7%), platinum + ICI-based chemotherapies (9.4%), and other (7.7%). The most common post-index LOT regimens were non-platinum based (61.2%), ICI based (15.3%), platinum based (10.7%), platinum + ICI based (3.2%), and other (2.5%). Median time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, and overall survival were numerically longest with index LOT ICI-based regimens (6.5, 9.9, and 18.9 months, respectively) and shortest with platinum-based regimens (2.8, 5.3, and 8.0 months, respectively) and non-platinum-based regimens (2.6, 5.0, and 7.8 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer without actionable genomic alterations previously treated with platinum + ICIs, non-platinum chemotherapy agents were most commonly prescribed in the index LOT. Clinical outcomes including time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, and overall survival were short, highlighting the unmet need for more effective later-line treatments.

Cardiovascular risk factor burden, treatment, and control among adults with chronic kidney disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a major concern in persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed the current burden of cardiovascular risk factors and differences in risk factor treatment and control in the general US adult population by CKD status. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 10,741 adults aged 20+ years from the 2007-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was performed. Persons were categorized into 3 groups: CKD stages 3 to 5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), CKD stages 1 and 2 (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), and no CKD. RESULTS: The majority of adults with CKD stages 3 to 5 (79.8%) and stages 1 and 2 (59.1%) had ≥2 cardiovascular risk factors, substantially higher than adults without CKD (32.7%, P < .001). Diabetes was the most strongly associated risk factor and was highly specific for CKD stages 1 and 2 (prevalence ratio 2.53, 95% CI 2.21-2.89) and, to a lesser extent, CKD stages 3 to 5 (prevalence ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.38-1.84). Most adults with diagnosed risk factors reported medication use for risk factor control, and pharmacologic treatment was more common among those with than without CKD. However, poor risk factor control was also common among persons treated for risk factors with CKD compared with those without CKD. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be a substantial cardiovascular risk factor burden among adults with CKD stages 3 to 5 and, to a lesser extent, adults with CKD stages 1 and 2 when compared with adults without CKD. Overall, optimal risk factor control is low in adults with CKD, highlighting the need for aggressive cardiovascular risk reduction in adults with CKD.

Burden of peripheral arterial disease in Europe and the United States: a patient survey.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to quantify the burden of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) with respect to health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment, and healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2010 EU National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS), which included participants from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK (5 EU, N = 57,805) as well as the 2010 US NHWS (N = 75,000). The NHWS is an annual, cross-sectional, self-administered Internet survey which employs a stratified random sampling frame to match the age and gender characteristics of the NHWS sample with known population statistics. Participants who self-reported a diagnosis of PAD were compared with participants who did not self-report a diagnosis of PAD on health-related quality of life (mental and physical component summary scores and health utilities from the Short Form-12v2), work productivity and activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), and healthcare resource use in terms of the number of physician visits, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations in the past six months through regression modeling adjusting for demographics and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 743 (1.29%) and 777 (1.04%) participants self-reported a diagnosis of PAD in the 5 EU and US, respectively. After adjusting for demographics and health characteristics, patients with PAD reported worse health-related quality of life, as measured by health utilities (5 EU: 0.66 vs. 0.70; US: 0.66 vs. 0.72; all p < .05), greater overall work impairment percentage (5 EU: 38.27% vs. 27.48%; US: 23.89% vs. 14.26%) and greater healthcare resource use compared to participants without PAD (all p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a significant burden for patients with PAD in both the 5 EU countries and the US with respect to both quality of life and economic outcomes. Improved management of these patients may have profound effects from both patient and societal perspectives.

Treatment Patterns and Adverse Event-Related Hospitalization Among Patients with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Mutated Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer After Treatment with EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy Regimens.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) are established first-line treatments among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR-sensitizing mutations. Upon EGFR TKI resistance, there are scant data supporting a standard of care in subsequent lines of therapy. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize real-world treatment patterns and adverse events associated with hospitalization in later lines of therapy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of administrative claims included adults with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who initiated a next line of therapy (index line of therapy) following EGFR TKI and platinum-based chemotherapy discontinuation on/after 1 November, 2015. Treatment regimens and adverse event rates during the index line of therapy were described. RESULTS: Among 195 eligible patients (median age: 59 years; female: 60%), the five most common index line of therapy regimens were immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy (29%), EGFR TKI monotherapy (21%), platinum-based chemotherapy (19%), non-platinum-chemotherapy (13%), and EGFR TKI combinations (9%). The overall median (95% confidence interval) time to discontinuation of the index line of therapy was 2.8 (2.1-3.2) months. Common adverse events associated with hospitalizations included infection/sepsis, pneumonia/pneumonitis, and anemia (2.9, 2.8, and 2.0 per 100 person-months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among EGFR TKI-resistant patients who discontinued platinum-based chemotherapy, the duration of the next line of therapy was short, treatment was highly variable, and re-treatment with EGFR TKIs and platinum-based regimens was common, suggesting a lack of standard of care in later lines. Adverse event rates associated with hospitalization were high, especially among platinum-treated patients. These results underscore the unmet need for new therapies in a later line of treatment to reduce the clinical burden among patients in this population.

Reasons given by general practitioners for non-treatment decisions in younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are less likely to receive antihyperglycaemic therapy compared to their younger counterparts. The purpose of this study was to assess the reasons of general practitioners (GPs) for not treating younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with antihyperglycaemic agents. METHODS: In a survey conducted between November 2009 and January 2010, 358 GPs from the United Kingdom selected reasons for not initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and untreated with any antihyperglycaemic agent for at least six months following diagnosis. Thirty-six potential reasons were classified into four major categories: Mild hyperglycaemia, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents, Comorbidities and polypharmacy, and Patient-related reasons. Reasons for non-treatment were compared between younger (n = 1, 023) and older (n = 1, 005) patients. RESULTS: Non-treatment reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia were selected more often by GPs for both younger (88%) and older (86%) patients than those in other categories. For older patients, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents (46% vs. 38%) and Comorbidities and polypharmacy (33% vs. 19%), both including safety-related issues, were selected significantly (p < 0.001) more often by GPs. No between-group difference was observed for the Patient-related reasons category. The GP-reported HbA1c threshold for initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for younger patients (mean ± standard deviation: 7.3% ± 0.7) compared to older patients (7.5% ± 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: GPs selected reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia for non-treatment of their untreated patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, despite nearly one-third of these patients having their most recent HbA1c value ≥7%. The findings further suggest that safety-related issues may influence the non-treatment of older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Healthcare Resource Use and Cost: The Impact of Adopting an Abuse-Deterrent Formulation of Extended Release Morphine.

BACKGROUND: Development of abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) of prescription opioids (RxO) is an important step toward reducing misuse and abuse. Morphine-ARER (MorphaBond™ ER) is an extended-release (ER) morphine sulfate tablet formulated to deter misuse/abuse via intravenous (IV) and intranasal (IN) routes of administration. OBJECTIVE: A model was developed to estimate the budget impact to a hypothetical commercial health plan of 10 million members 2 years after adding morphine-ARER to drug formulary. METHODS: We analyzed incremental health care resource use (HCRU) associated with RxO misuse/abuse based on a health plan's RxO formulary coverage and patterns of misuse/abuse. Misuse/abuse rates, incremental HCRU and associated costs were based on the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an analysis of claims from OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc. (2013-2015) and published literature. RxO formulary shares were based on 2016-2017 Symphony Retail Prescription data. Morphine-ARER was assumed to capture 20 and 30 percent from branded and 0.3 and 0.6 percent from generic non-ADF ER morphine, in the first and second years, respectively. Proportions of misuse/abuse deterred by physical/chemical properties of morphine-ARER were assumed to be 90 percent via IV and 60 percent via IN administration, with further IN deterrence based on results from morphine-ARER's human abuse liability study. RESULTS: Adding morphine-ARER to formulary resulted in a potential decrease in abuse-related healthcare costs by $557,321 (-$0.00232 per-member per-month [PMPM]), offsetting a pharmacy cost increase of $217,045 (+$0.00090 PMPM), resulting in net cost-savings of $0.00142 PMPM over 2 years, based on certain model assumptions. CONCLUSION: Placing morphine-ARER on a health plan's drug formulary may result in reduced misuse/abuse and overall cost savings.

Association Between Formulary Coverage and Use of Abuse-Deterrent Prescription Opioids, Risk for Abuse or Overdose, and Associated Healthcare Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Significant public health concerns exist regarding the misuse and abuse of prescription opioids. Abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) opioids may be leveraged as an important tool for combating the current opioid crisis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationships between ADF opioid formulary coverage and the ADF utilization rate, the risk for opioid abuse or overdose, opioid abuse or overdose-related healthcare resource utilization, and medical costs within a calendar year. METHODS: This cross-sectional multiyear panel study included adults prescribed an opioid medication in 2015 or 2016. We analyzed the medical and pharmacy claims linked to health plan benefit design data. An ADF opioid-including reformulated oxycodone hydrochloride (HCl) controlled-release (CR; reformulated OxyContin), morphine sulfate and naltrexone HCl extended-release (ER; Embeda), and hydrocodone bitartrate ER (Hysingla ER)-was considered covered if it was listed on the health plan's formulary. Generalized linear models were used to assess the association between ADF opioid formulary coverage and the study outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1,350,607 eligible patients, those enrolled in health plans with coverage of ADF opioids were more likely to fill a prescription for an ADF opioid than those enrolled in plans that did not cover ADF opioids. The risk for opioid abuse or overdose was significantly lower among patients enrolled in plans with broader ADF coverage (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.95 for oxycodone HCl CR only vs no ADF coverage; adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.73 for oxycodone HCl CR plus ≥1 ADF opiods vs no ADF; adjusted OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81 for oxycodone HCl CR plus ≥1 ADF opiods vs oxycodone HCl CR only; all P <.0001). Approximately 15% and 25% reductions in the opioid abuse or overdose-related hospitalization rate and medical costs were observed for those in the oxycodone HCl CR plus ≥1 ADF opioids coverage group versus those without ADF opioid coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Broad formulary coverage of ADF opioids is associated with reduced rates of opioid abuse or overdose in real-world managed care populations. Health plan administrators and policymakers may consider improving the formulary coverage of ADF opioids as a strategy to ensure appropriate patient access to necessary pain medications while mitigating risk for opioid abuse or overdose.

Assessment of Work Loss Associated With Prescription-Related Opioid Use Disorder: A Retrospective Analysis of Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: Quantify work loss and costs associated with prescription opioid use disorder (OUD) from the employer perspective. METHODS: Retrospective claims analysis to compare missed work days and associated costs between employees with and without an OUD diagnosis in a 12-month period. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred eleven matched-pairs of employees were compared. The mean (SD) number of days missed while waiting for disability benefits (0.24 [1.4] vs 0.17 [1.0]; P = 0.035), absenteeism due to disability claims (9.5 [40.9] vs 5.6 [30.0]; P < 0.001), and medical visits (17.8 [18.5] vs 10.0 [12.4]; P < 0.001) was higher for employees with OUD compared with those without, resulting in higher mean (SD) indirect cost estimates of $8193 ($14,694) per employee (OUD) versus $5438 ($13,683) per employee (no OUD) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription OUD is associated with significant work loss and may pose considerable economic burden on employers.

Safe Opioid Storage and Disposal: A Survey of Patient Beliefs and Practices.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate knowledge, practices, and beliefs of US patients receiving prescription opioids regarding opioid storage, disposal, and diversion. DESIGN: Internet-based, cross-sectional survey conducted between September and October 2018. Fisher's exact tests and Kendall's Tau-c were used to assess associations with storage and disposal outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with acute (n=250) or chronic noncancer (n=250) pain were prescribed an oral opioid within 90 days of the survey. RESULTS: Mean (SD) patient age was 48 (14.7) years, 57.2% were female, 82.6% lived with ≥1 person in the home, and 28.0% had remaining/unused pills. One-third of all patients received safe opioid storage (35.2%) and/or disposal (31.4%) counseling from a healthcare provider, while 50.0% received neither storage nor disposal information. Only 27.4% of all patients stored their opioids in a locked location, and 17.9% of those with remaining/unused pills disposed of their medication. Patients who received any opioid counseling were more likely to keep their medication in a locked location compared with those who did not (42.4% vs 12.4%, respectively; P<0.0001), as were those who perceived any risk of opioid diversion in the home compared with those who perceived no risk or were unsure (53.7% vs 24.2%, respectively; P<0.0001). Disposal rates did not differ based on counseling received (20.8% counseled vs 16.1% not counseled; P=0.5011) or perceived diversion risk (27.8% perceived any risk vs 16.4% perceived no risk or unsure; P=0.3166). CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients receiving prescription opioids who receive safe storage/disposal counseling from a healthcare provider appears suboptimal. Further research is warranted to develop effective ways to improve patient opioid storage/disposal education and practices.

Health Care Utilization and Costs Associated with Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Oral Immediate-Release Opioids for Outpatient Acute Pain Management.

INTRODUCTION: Nausea and vomiting (NV) are common side effects of opioid use and limiting factors in pain management. This study sought to quantify the frequency of antiemetic prescribing and the impact of NV on health care resource utilization and costs in outpatients prescribed opioids for acute pain. The perspective was that of a commercial health plan. METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims from IMS PharMetrics Plus were used to identify patients initiating opioid therapy with a prescription for an oxycodone-, hydrocodone- or codeine-containing immediate-release product for acute use (≤15-day supply) between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014. Patients with a medical claim for NV (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 787.0x), with or without an antiemetic prescription fill, were compared with patients with no NV claim or antiemetic prescription fill to assess differences in all-cause health care utilization and costs over 1 month. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for between-group differences in baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: The co-prescribing of opioids with antiemetic agents was 10.2%. After PSM (n = 45,790 per group), patients with NV claims had significantly more hospitalizations (11.5% vs 4.2%), emergency department visits (65.0% vs 12.1%), and physician office visits (85.2% vs 64.5%) compared with patients with no NV claims (all P < 0.0001). Mean total health care costs were higher among patients with a NV claim versus those without evidence of the side effect ($6290 vs $2309; P < 0.0001). Among patients with a recent hospitalization, patients with NV claims had higher rates of 30-day rehospitalization than those with no NV claims (24.4% vs 3.0%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients prescribed opioids for management of acute pain, co-prescribing with antiemetics was low, and the economic burden associated with NV was high. Efforts to prevent NV in patients receiving opioid therapy may improve patient outcomes and provide cost savings to the health care system. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: Hospital charge master data were used to identify ACS-PCI patients aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 1 in-hospital claim for prasugrel or ticagrelor between August 1, 2011-April 30, 2013. Treatment groups were propensity matched for baseline and index hospitalization characteristics. HCRU and costs were assessed through 90-days post-discharge. Costs were determined based on hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios and adjusted to 2013 US dollars. RESULTS: Before matching, ticagrelor patients were older, more-often female, and had increased cardiovascular (CV) and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel patients. Propensity-matched length of index hospital stay (4.7 vs 4.9 days, p = 0.23) and risk for all-cause [30-day: relative risk (RR) = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.73-1.0; 90-day: RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.80-1.0, and CV-related (30-day: RR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59-1.0; 90-day: RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.73-1.1) re-hospitalizations did not significantly differ between prasugrel and ticagrelor, respectively. Compared to ticagrelor, the propensity-matched risk of re-hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI) (30-day: RR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.75; 90-day: RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.81) and an outpatient medical encounter for dyspnea (30-day: RR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.33-0.74; 90-day: RR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.46-0.80) were significantly lower for prasugrel patients, with no significant differences in bleeding encounters between groups (30-day: RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.54-1.40; 90-day: RR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.71-1.50). Matched total healthcare costs were not significantly different between groups during the index hospitalization ($36,011 vs $37,247, p = 0.21), 30-days post-discharge ($2007 vs $2522, p = 0.48), 90-days post-discharge ($4564 vs $5242, p = 0.49), and aggregate of the index hospitalization through 90-day follow-up ($40,576 vs $42,494, p = 0.09) timeframes. CONCLUSIONS: Re-hospitalization for MI and outpatient encounters for dyspnea were lower in prasugrel treated than in ticagrelor treated ACS-PCI patients up to 90-days post-index hospitalization discharge, with no difference in bleeding encounters or healthcare costs between the two populations. This data supports the utility of prasugrel in routine clinical practice. These findings should be considered within limitations of observational research.

One-year post-discharge resource utilization and treatment patterns of patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare 1-year real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU), associated charges, and antiplatelet treatment patterns among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel. METHODS: Using the ProMetis-Lx database, adult ACS-PCI patients treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel post-discharge were identified between 1 August 2011 and 31 May 2013 and propensity matched to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Before matching, ticagrelor-treated patients (n = 2991) were older with increased baseline ischemic and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel-treated patients (n = 12,797). After matching, ticagrelor patients had higher all-cause HRU (2.5 vs. 2.4 per patient per month; P = 0.012) and cardiovascular (CV) HRU (0.4 vs. 0.3 per patient per month; P = 0.026), with the difference in CV rehospitalizations (17.7 vs. 15.7 %; P = 0.011) primarily driven by congestive heart failure (CHF) (4.9 vs. 3.8 %; P = 0.02). All-cause charges within 1 year did not significantly differ between groups ($US5456 vs. 4844 per patient per month; P = 0.37), but dyspnea-related total charges were significantly higher with ticagrelor ($US139 vs. 95 per patient per month; P = 0.005). Although infrequent, switching was slightly higher with ticagrelor (8.3 vs. 6.0 %; P < 0.001) at 1 year, and mean persistence was slightly longer with prasugrel (150 vs. 159 days; P = 0.002), with no significant difference in mean adherence (61 vs. 63 %; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Overall monthly HRU was slightly lower with prasugrel than with ticagrelor, with no significant difference in bleeding HRU. Prasugrel was associated with slightly higher pharmacy charges, but lower dyspnea charges, resulting in no significant difference in total charges. Patients receiving prasugrel tended to use it for longer than those receiving ticagrelor as less switching occurred. These findings may aid decision making, but must be tempered due to inherent study limitations.

A medication adherence and persistence comparison of hypertensive patients treated with single-, double- and triple-pill combination therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Fixed-dose combination therapy reduces pill burden and may, therefore, improve medication adherence and health outcomes. This study compared adherence to and persistence with single-, double-, and triple-pill treatment regimens among hypertensive patients in a US clinical practice setting. METHODS: Adults with hypertension treated with three anti-hypertensive medications were identified. Index date was the first occurrence of a single-, double-, or triple-pill regimen with olmesartan or valsartan plus amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide from July 2010 to September 2011. Patients were followed for 12 months to assess adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥ 80%) and time to discontinuation (medication gap ≥ 60 days) of the index regimen. Multivariate regression models were used to compare adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: The number of prescribed pills in the index regimen was monotonically related to adherence with 55.3%, 40.4% and 32.6% of patients having PDC ≥ 80% in the single-, double- and triple-pill cohorts, respectively. In adjusted analysis, patients in the double- (odds ratio [OR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.48) and triple-pill (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.22-0.30) cohorts were less likely to be adherent to their index regimens than those in the single-pill cohort. Double-pill (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.74-2.06) and triple-pill patients (HR: 2.49; 95% CI: 2.14-2.88) were more likely to discontinue treatment than single-pill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Greater pill burden was directly and significantly associated with decreased adherence and persistence with antihypertensive therapies in real-practice settings. Use of fixed-dose combinations that reduce pill burden could help patients to continue treatment and may result in improved clinical outcomes. Typical of observational studies, the potential for residual confounding of adherence estimates remains due to lack of randomization of treatment groups.

Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in high-risk patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy in the United Kingdom: analysis of a primary-care database.

OBJECTIVE: British clinical guidelines recommend statins as first-line lipid-modifying treatment (LMT) for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We undertook an observational study to assess total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in high-risk patients who were treated with atorvastatin monotherapy by UK general practitioners. METHODS: This retrospective database study included patients with a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between November 30, 2008, and November 30, 2011, with the index date defined as the first atorvastatin prescription during this period. Eligible high-risk patients with evidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) were required to have ≥1 TC and LDL-C measurement between 3 and 12 months after the index date, and continuous enrollment 1 year before and 1 year after the index date. Cholesterol levels were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines: TC <4.0 mmol/L or LDL-C <2.0 mmol/L. RESULTS: Of 2999 high-risk patients (60.2% men; mean [SD] age = 67.9 [10.6] years) meeting selection criteria, 23.9% 28.2%, 36.2%, and 11.6% received prescriptions for atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg, respectively (percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding). Across all doses, the mean (SD) follow-up TC was 4.08 (0.80) mmol/L and LDL-C 2.08 (0.65) mmol/L. A large proportion of patients (88.8%) had TC < 5.0 mmol/L. However, only 45.8% had TC < 4.0 mmol/L, and 46.5% had LDL-C < 2.0 mmol/L. Although a larger proportion of patients with CHD/AVD + DM reached guideline-recommended lipid levels, only 63.7% of such patients had TC < 4.0 or LDL-C < 2.0 mmol/L, which are the current targets for this subgroup as recommended by NICE. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of UK high-CVD-risk patients receiving atorvastatin monotherapy achieved guideline-recommended treatment targets for TC, and less than two-thirds of patients with CHD/AVD + DM had values below TC (4.0 mmol/L) or LDL-C (2.0 mmol/L) targets. More effective lipid-lowering strategies may be warranted to optimize cholesterol lowering and target attainment in high-risk patients. Limitations of this study include its retrospective, observational nature.

LDL-C levels in US patients at high cardiovascular risk receiving rosuvastatin monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy is recommended as the first-line pharmacotherapeutic approach for lowering LDL-C levels in patients at high cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess LDL-C levels among patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with rosuvastatin monotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used patient records from the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Records (GE Centricity EMR) database and administrative claims data from Humana Medicare to identify patients at high cardiovascular risk with a first prescription for rosuvastatin monotherapy (index date) from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. Eligible adult patients had an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis or a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) procedure code indicating coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, ≥1 LDL-C measurement 3 to 12 months after the index date, and continuous data during 1-year baseline and 1-year follow-up. Mean LDL-C levels and distribution of patients around <70 mg/dL and <100 mg/dL thresholds overall and by daily rosuvastatin dose were assessed. RESULTS: Among 6004 GE Centricity EMR patients (mean [SD] age, 66 [10] years; 56% men) and 11,320 Humana Medicare patients (mean [SD] age, 74 [8] years; 44% men) who met selection criteria, the most frequently prescribed rosuvastatin dose was 10 mg, and the mean (SD) follow-up LDL-C level was 89 (37) mg/dL for GE Centricity EMR patients and 92 (36) mg/dL for Humana Medicare patients. Overall, lower mean LDL-C levels were observed as rosuvastatin dose increased. However, less than one-third of GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare patients had an LDL-C level <70 mg/dL, and approximately two-thirds had an LDL-C level <100 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: More effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin up-titration or combination therapy, may be needed to achieve therapeutic goals in a substantial proportion of high-risk patients.

Limitations of real-world treatment with atorvastatin monotherapy for lowering LDL-C in high-risk cardiovascular patients in the US.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines endorse statin therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, if needed, after lifestyle changes. Atorvastatin is a common statin with greater LDL-C lowering efficacy than most other statins; its availability in generic form will likely increase its use. This study assessed attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in high-risk CVD patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy. METHODS: Analyses of two retrospective US cohorts of patients who received a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (index date defined as first prescription date) in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record (EMR) (N=10,693) and Humana Medicare (N=16,798) databases. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, with ≥1 LDL-C measurement between 3 months and 1 year postindex date, and continuously enrolled for 1 year prior to and following the index date. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients, 21.8%, 29.6%, 29.9%, and 18.7% (GE Centricity EMR) and 25.4%, 32.9%, 27.8%, and 14.0% (Humana Medicare) received 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) follow-up LDL-C levels were 2.1±0.8 mmol/L (83±30 mg/dL) and 2.3±0.8 mmol/L (88±31 mg/dL) for the GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare cohorts, respectively. Regardless of dose, only 28.3%-34.8% of patients had LDL-C levels <1.8 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL), and 72.0%-78.0% achieved LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) in both cohorts. As many as 41% and 13% of patients had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above LDL-C 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), respectively, in both cohorts; these percentages were generally similar across atorvastatin doses. CONCLUSION: In this real-world US setting, a large number of high-risk CVD patients did not attain guideline-recommended LDL-C levels with atorvastatin monotherapy. More than 65% of the patients had LDL-C levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL), and of these, 30%-40% had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above this, regardless of dose. This suggests that more effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin uptitration, switching to a higher efficacy statin, and/or combination therapy, may be required to achieve optimal LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.