Patient out-of-pocket costs for guideline-recommended treatments for erectile dysfunction: a medicare cost modeling analysis.

Patient out-of-pocket (OOP) cost represents an access barrier to erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment. We determined OOP cost for men with ED covered by Fee-for-Service Medicare. Coverage policies were obtained from the Medicare Coverage Database for treatments recommended by the 2018 American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines. OOP cost was retrieved from the 2023 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Final Rule. OOP cost for treatments without Medicare coverage were extracted from GoodRx® or literature and inflated to 2022 dollars. Annual prescription costs were calculated using the published estimate of 52.2 yearly instances of sexual intercourse. Medicare has coverage for inflatable penile prostheses (IPP; strong recommendation), non-coverage for vacuum erection devices (VED; moderate recommendation) and phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE5i; strong recommendation), and no policies for intracavernosal injections (ICI; moderate recommendation), intraurethral alprostadil (IA; conditional recommendation), or low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT; conditional recommendation). Annual IA prescription is most costly ($4022), followed by ICI prescription ($3947), one ESWT course ($3445), IPP ($1600), PDE5i prescription ($696), and one VED ($213). PDE5i and IPP, both strongly recommended by AUA guidelines, are associated with lower OOP cost. Better understanding of patient financial burden may inform healthcare decision-making.

Downstream Revenue Realized by Facilities Placing Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in Medicare Beneficiaries to Treat Erectile Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the incremental downstream revenue generated from subsequent treatment of men who received an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) to treat erectile dysfunction (ED), compared to men without ED. METHODS: The 100% Medicare Standard Analytic Files were used to conduct a retrospective claims analysis of the 5-year revenue generated by patients receiving IPP to treat their ED, compared to a propensity-matched cohort of men without ED. Men aged 65 years or older with ED who underwent IPP implantation (Current Procedural Terminology 54405) in a hospital outpatient setting between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021, and who had continuous Medicare Parts A and B enrollment for 12 months pre-index IPP and 5 years post-index IPP discharge date were included in the study. Men without ED but with comparable characteristics were identified and used as a comparator group. Revenue received by hospitals from Medicare was defined as the sum of payments for patient services, other payor-paid amounts, patient deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance. Revenue was inflated to 2022 US dollars. The mean values and their corresponding standard deviations (SD) are reported. RESULTS: After matching, there were 2905 men with ED who received an IPP and 7462 men without ED. The IPP cohort showed a significantly higher 5-year cumulative revenue (mean=$34,571 [SD=$50,234]) compared to the men without ED (mean=$3189 [SD=$11,527]). When stratified by diagnosis type, the differences in revenue were $10,258 for circulatory disease, $2646 for diabetes, $2013 for urology, and $1043 for prostate cancer. Significantly more IPP patients had at least 1 health encounter for these conditions over the 5-year follow-up period than their matched controls (55.0% vs 7.8% for circulatory, 46.7% vs 16.8% for urology, 19.3% vs 3.6% for diabetes, and 19.0% vs 3.0% for prostate cancer). CONCLUSION: Men with ED who received IPP generated substantially higher revenue for the healthcare system over a 5-year period, nearly 10 times as much, compared to men without ED, excluding the initial cost of the IPP procedure. The presence of ED, coupled with IPP usage, is associated with significantly increased healthcare revenue across a range of medical conditions compared to men without ED. These findings emphasize the financial implications for advanced ED programs to improve access to necessary care for these patients. Healthcare facilities may leverage these insights to effectively allocate resources to deliver critical healthcare to men with ED.

Clinical and economic outcomes of assigning percutaneous coronary intervention patients to contrast-sparing strategies based on the predicted risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury.

OBJECTIVE: Contrast-sparing strategies have been developed for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients at increased risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI), and numerous CI-AKI risk prediction models have been created. However, the potential clinical and economic consequences of using predicted CI-AKI risk thresholds for assigning patients to contrast-sparing regimens have not been evaluated. We estimated the clinical and economic consequences of alternative CI-AKI risk thresholds for assigning Medicare PCI patients to contrast-sparing strategies. METHODS: Medicare data were used to identify inpatient PCI from January 2017 to June 2021. A prediction model was developed to assign each patient a predicted probability of CI-AKI. Multivariable modeling was used to assign each patient two marginal predicted values for each of several clinical and economic outcomes based on (1) their underlying clinical and procedural characteristics plus their true CI-AKI status in the data and (2) their characteristics plus their counterfactual CI-AKI status. Specifically, CI-AKI patients above the predicted risk threshold for contrast-sparing were reassigned their no CI-AKI (counterfactual) outcomes. Expected event rates, resource use, and costs were estimated before and after those CI-AKI patients were reassigned their counterfactual outcomes. This entailed bootstrapped sampling of the full cohort. RESULTS: Of the 542,813 patients in the study cohort, 5,802 (1.1%) had CI-AKI. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the prediction model was 0.81. At a predicted risk threshold for CI-AKI of >2%, approximately 18.0% of PCI patients were assigned to contrast-sparing strategies, resulting in (/100,000 PCI patients) 121 fewer deaths, 58 fewer myocardial infarction readmissions, 4,303 fewer PCI hospital days, $11.3 million PCI cost savings, and $25.8 million total one-year cost savings, versus no contrast-sparing strategies. LIMITATIONS: Claims data may not fully capture disease burden and are subject to inherent limitations such as coding inaccuracies. Further, the dataset used reflects only individuals with fee-for-service Medicare, and the results may not be generalizable to Medicare Advantage or other patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Assignment to contrast-sparing regimens at a predicted risk threshold close to the underlying incidence of CI-AKI is projected to result in significant clinical and economic benefits.

Diversity in randomized clinical trials for peripheral artery disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Significant race and sex disparities exist in the prevalence, diagnosis, and outcomes of peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, clinical trials evaluating treatments for PAD often lack representative patient populations. This systematic review aims to summarize the demographic representation and enrollment strategies in clinical trials of lower-extremity endovascular interventions for PAD. METHODS: Following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched multiple sources (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, WHO clinical trial registry) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT protocols, and peer-reviewed journal publications of RCTs conducted between January 2012 and December 2022. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize trial characteristics, publication or study protocol characteristics, and the reporting of demographic characteristics. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between demographic characteristics and certain trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 2,374 records were identified. Of these, 59 met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 35 trials, 14 publications, and 10 protocols. Information regarding demographic representation was frequently missing. While all 14 trial publications reported age and sex, only 4 reported race/ethnicity, and none reported socioeconomic or marital status. Additionally, only 4 publications reported clinical outcomes by demographic characteristics. Meta-regression analysis revealed that 6% more women were enrolled in non-European trials (36%) than in European trials (30%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review highlight potential issues that may compromise the reliability and external validity of study findings in lower-extremity PAD RCTs when applied to the real-world population. Addressing these issues is crucial to enhance the generalizability and impact of clinical trial results in the field of PAD, ultimately leading to improved clinical outcomes for patients in underrepresented populations. REGISTRATION: The systematic review methodology was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022378304).

Diversity in clinical trial inclusion for peripheral artery disease lower extremity endovascular interventions: a systematic review protocol.

Aim: This review provides a study protocol for a systematic review of peripheral artery disease (PAD) clinical trials to examine the eligibility criteria, demographic representation, and enrollment strategies among PAD patients undergoing lower extremity (LE) endovascular interventions. Methods: This systematic review will be conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for systematic reviews and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Eligible studies will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between January 2012 and December 2022. The primary outcome will be a description and summary of the frequency of the reporting of demographic characteristics. The feasibility of a meta-analysis or meta-regression will be explored, but if determined to be infeasible, the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline will be followed for the reporting of findings. Discussion: The findings may help to quantify existing inequities in clinical trial participation that may be addressed through optimizing enrollment strategies for future PAD trials. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022378304).

Cost to Medicare of acute kidney injury in percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI), including contrast-induced AKI (CI-AKI), is an important complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), resulting in short- and long-term adverse clinical outcomes. While prior research has reported an increased cost burden to hospitals from CI-AKI, the incremental cost to payers remains unknown. Understanding this incremental cost may inform decisions and even policy in the future. The objective of this study was to estimate the short- and long-term cost to Medicare of AKI overall, and specifically CI-AKI, in PCI. METHODS: Patients undergoing inpatient PCI between January 2017 and June 2020 were selected from Medicare 100% fee-for-service data. Baseline clinical characteristics, PCI lesion/procedural characteristics, and AKI/CI-AKI during the PCI admission, were identified from diagnosis and procedure codes. Poisson regression, generalized linear modelling, and longitudinal mixed effects modelling, in full and propensity-matched cohorts, were used to compare PCI admission length of stay (LOS) and cost (Medicare paid amount inflated to 2022 US$), as well as total costs during 1-year following PCI, between AKI and non-AKI patients. RESULTS: The study cohort included 509,039 patients, of whom 104,033 (20.4%) were diagnosed with AKI and 9,691 (1.9%) with CI-AKI. In the full cohort, AKI was associated with +4.12 (95% confidence interval = 4.10, 4.15) days index PCI admission LOS, +$11,313 ($11,093, $11,534) index admission costs, and +$14,800 ($14,359, $15,241) total 1-year costs. CI-AKI was associated with +3.03 (2.97, 3.08) days LOS, +$6,566 ($6,148, $6,984) index admission costs, and +$13,381 ($12,118, $14,644) cumulative 1-year costs (all results are adjusted for baseline characteristics). Results from the propensity-matched analyses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: AKI, and specifically CI-AKI, during PCI is associated with significantly longer PCI admission LOS, PCI admission costs, and long-terms costs.

The rate of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with spinal cord stimulation.

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the chronic back and leg pain spinal cord stimulation (SCS)-implanted population was conducted using a propensity-matched cohort population. OBJECTIVE: To project the percentage of patients with SCS expected to need at least 1 MRI within 5 years of implant. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients experiencing pain, including those who underwent implantation with SCS systems, are likely to have comorbidities and ongoing pain issues that may require diagnostic imaging. MRI is the most common diagnostic imaging modality for evaluating patients with new or worsening low back pain. However, patients with SCS are typically excluded from receiving MRI because of the safety risks related to the interactions of MRI fields and implantable devices. METHODS: To provide an accurate estimate of the need for MRI in the SCS-implanted population, Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental databases were used to perform analysis of SCS-implanted patients propensity score matched to a nonimplanted population-based cohort. Four years of paid and adjudicated claims data were used to determine the magnetic resonance (MR) images received, which was exponentially projected to estimate MRI within 5 and 10 years of implant. RESULTS: Approximately 82% to 84% of SCS-implanted patients are expected to need at least 1 MRI within 5 years of implant. Furthermore, 59% to 74% of patients will require nonspine MRI within 10 years. CONCLUSION: There is a high need for MRI in this chronic back and leg pain SCS population, with a significant portion being completed on locations outside of the spine. This analysis highlights a need for MRI-conditional SCS devices that grant access of patients with SCS to this imaging modality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.