Impact of headache frequency and preventive treatment failure on quality of life, disability, and direct and indirect costs among individuals with episodic migraine in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US). BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt-in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0-3 days/month; moderate-to-high: 4-14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0-1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: Among individuals with moderate-to-high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0-1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive-naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0-1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive-naive 26.8 (2.9) (p < 0.001) and 0-1 TF 30.1 (3.3) (p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive-naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive-naive, p = 0.006; 0-1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations (p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0-1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive-naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups (p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low-frequency EM group. CONCLUSIONS: In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF.

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice. METHODS: An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12. RESULTS: There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles. CONCLUSION: In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive medication failure on quality of life, functioning, and costs among individuals with migraine across several European countries: need for effective preventive treatment.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0-1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0-1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher. CONCLUSIONS: Increased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments.

Patient-reported migraine-specific quality of life, activity impairment and headache impact with once-daily atogepant for preventive treatment of migraine in a randomized, 52-week trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. METHODS: In this 52-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, adults with 4-14 monthly migraine days received atogepant 60 mg once-daily or standard care. Health outcome endpoints collected from participants randomized to atogepant included change from baseline in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1) Role Function-Restrictive (RFR), Role Function-Preventive (RFP) and Emotional Function (EF) domain scores, change in Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D) Performance of Daily Activities (PDA) and Physical Impairment (PI) domain scores, and change in Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) total score. RESULTS: Of 744 randomized participants, 521 received atogepant 60 mg in the modified intent-to-treat population. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in MSQ-RFR score were 30.02 (95% confidence interval = 28.16-31.87) at week 12 and 34.70 (95% confidence interval = 32.74-36.66) at week 52. Improvements were also observed in other MSQ domains, AIM-D PDA, PI and HIT-6 total scores. A ≥5-point improvement from baseline in HIT-6 score was observed in 59.9% of participants at week 4 and 80.8% of participants at week 52. CONCLUSION: Over 52 weeks, atogepant 60 mg once-daily was associated with sustained improvements in quality of life and reductions in activity impairment and headache impact.Trial Registration: NCT03700320.

Effect of Atogepant for Preventive Migraine Treatment on Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 ADVANCE Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist atogepant is indicated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. We evaluated changes in patient-reported outcomes with atogepant in adults with migraine. METHODS: In this phase 3, 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial (ADVANCE), adults with 4-14 migraine days per month received atogepant (10, 30, or 60 mg) once daily or placebo. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive (RFR) domain at week 12 and mean monthly Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D) Performance of Daily Activities (PDA) and Physical Impairment (PI) domains across the 12-week treatment period. Exploratory endpoints included change in MSQ Role Function-Preventive (RFP) and Emotional Function (EF) domains; AIM-D total scores; and change in Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 scores. RESULTS: Of 910 participants randomized, 873 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant: 10 mg [n = 214]; 30 mg [n = 223]; and 60 mg [n = 222]; placebo [n = 214]). All atogepant groups demonstrated significantly greater improvements vs placebo in MSQ RFR that exceeded minimum clinically meaningful between-group difference (3.2 points) at week 12 (least-square mean difference [LSMD] vs placebo: 10 mg [9.9]; 30 mg [10.1]; 60 mg [10.8]; all p < 0.0001). LSMDs in monthly AIM-D PDA and PI scores across the 12-week treatment period improved significantly for the atogepant 30 (PDA: -2.54; p = 0.0003; PI: -1.99; and p = 0.0011) and 60 mg groups (PDA: -3.32; p < 0.0001; PI: -2.46; p < 0.0001), but not for the 10 mg group (PDA: -1.19; p = 0.086; PI: -1.08; p = 0.074). In exploratory analyses, atogepant 30 and 60 mg were associated with nominal improvements in MSQ RFP and EF domains, other AIM-D outcomes, and HIT-6 scores at the earliest time point (week 4) and throughout the 12-week treatment period. Results varied for atogepant 10 mg. DISCUSSION: Atogepant 30 and 60 mg produced significant improvements in key patient-reported outcomes including MSQ-RFR scores and both AIM-D domains. Nominal improvements also occurred for other MSQ domains and HIT-6, reinforcing the beneficial effects of atogepant as a new treatment for migraine prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03777059. Submitted: December 13, 2018; First patient enrolled: December 14, 2018. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03777059. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that daily atogepant is associated with improvements in health-related quality-of-life measures in patients with 4-14 migraine days per month.

Development and validation of a novel patient-reported outcome measure in people with episodic migraine and chronic migraine: The Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the content validity and psychometric properties of the Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary (AIM-D). BACKGROUND: Measuring treatment effects on migraine impairment requires a psychometrically sound patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure developed consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance. METHODS: The AIM-D was created from concepts that emerged during qualitative interviews with five clinicians experienced in treating migraine and concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 40 adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The initial version was refined based on three waves of cognitive interviews with 38 adults with EM or CM and input from a panel of clinical and measurement experts. The AIM-D was psychometrically evaluated using data from 316 adults with EM or CM who participated in a 13-week prospective observational study. Study participants completed PRO assessments including the AIM-D and a daily headache diary. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to determine the factor structure. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AIM-D were assessed. Additional PRO measures including the Patient Global Impression - Severity (PGI-S), Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive domain, and Headache Impact Test were used for psychometric evaluation of the AIM-D. RESULTS: Based on CE interviews with adults with migraine and input from an expert panel, activity impairment was identified as the target in the preliminary conceptual framework, which had two domains: performance of daily activities (PDAs) and physical impairment (PI). Revision of the draft AIM-D through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews and expert panel meetings resulted in a content valid 11-item version. Exploratory factor analysis supported both one- and two-domain structures for the AIM-D, which were further supported by confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings all >0.90). The AIM-D domains (PDA and PI) and total score showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95-0.97), acceptable test-retest reliability for weekly average scores (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.60 for participants with no change in PGI-S between baseline and week 2), and good convergent and known-groups validity. There was evidence of responsiveness based on changes in PGI-S score and monthly migraine days. CONCLUSION: The AIM-D is a content valid and psychometrically sound measure designed to evaluate activity impairment and is suitable for use in clinical trials of preventive treatments for EM or CM.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, is approved in the USA to reduce risk of cardiovascular (CV) death in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established CV disease, based on EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) trial results. Empagliflozin reduced major adverse CV event (MACE) by 14%, CV death by 38%, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35% vs placebo, each on top of standard of care (SoC). SGLT-2 inhibitors canagliflozin and dapagliflozin have also been compared with placebo, all on top of SoC, in CV outcome trials. In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) Program, canagliflozin reduced MACE by 14% and HHF by 33%. Dapagliflozin reduced HHF by 27% in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Cardiovascular Events). This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or SoC, in US adults with T2DM and established CV disease. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individual patient-level discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict time-to-event for CV and renal outcomes, and specific adverse events over patients' lifetimes. Occurrence of events in EMPA-REG OUTCOME was estimated based on event-free survival curves with time-dependent covariates. An HR for canagliflozin or dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin on each clinical event was estimated from published CANVAS, DECLARE-TIMI 58, and EMPA-REG OUTCOME data using indirect treatment comparison. Public sources provided US costs and utilities. RESULTS: The model predicted longer survival for empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and SoC mainly due to direct reduction in CV death. Empagliflozin dominated canagliflozin, yielding more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.38) at a lower cost (-US$306). Compared with dapagliflozin and SoC, empagliflozin yielded 0.50 and 0.84 incremental QALYs at US$1517 and US$27 539 incremental costs, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$3054/QALY and US$32 848/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was projected to dominate canagliflozin and be highly cost-effective compared with dapagliflozin and SoC using US healthcare costs.

Quantifying the Risk Continuum for Cardiovascular Death in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: In type 2 diabetes (T2D), the most common causes of death are cardiovascular (CV) related, accounting for >50% of deaths in some reports. As novel diabetes therapies reduce CV death risk, identifying patients with T2D at highest CV death risk allows for cost-effective prioritization of these therapies. Accordingly, the primary goal of this study was to quantify the risk continuum for CV death in a real-world T2D population as a means to identify patients with the greatest expected benefit from cardioprotective antidiabetes therapies. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with T2D receiving services through an integrated health-care system and used data generated through electronic medical records (EMRs). Quantifying the risk continuum entailed developing a prediction model for CV death, creating an integer risk score based on the final prediction model and estimating future CV death risk according to risk score ranking. RESULTS: Among 59,180 patients with T2D followed for an average of 7.5 years, 15,691 deaths occurred, 6,033 (38%) of which were CV related. The EMR-based prediction model included age, established CV disease and risk factors and glycemic indices (c statistic = 0.819). The 10% highest-risk patients according to prediction model elements had an annual CV death risk of ∼5%; the 25% highest-risk patients had an annual risk of ∼2%. CONCLUSIONS: This study incorporated a prediction modelling approach to quantify the risk continuum for CV death in T2D. Prospective application allows us to rank individuals with T2D according to their CV death risk, and may guide prioritization of novel diabetes therapies with cardioprotective properties.

Real-World Glycemic Lowering Effectiveness of Linagliptin Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes by Age, Renal Function, and Race.

INTRODUCTION: To assess real-world effectiveness of linagliptin in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) across a range of ages and renal function. Effectiveness was assessed in different races, with a focus on African Americans (AA). METHODS: This was a non-interventional retrospective cohort study using data in the Optum clinical database from adults with T2DM initiating linagliptin. Date of the first linagliptin prescription was the index date. Outcomes included change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and the percentage of persons achieving an HbA1c < 7% (53 mmol/mol) during the 60-180 days following linagliptin initiation. Analyses of age by renal function were conducted. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess change in HbA1c, controlling for an a priori list of covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 11,001 persons were included. Mean pre-index HbA1c value was 8.2% (66 mmol/mol), with higher levels in younger versus older persons and AAs versus other race groups. Persons initiating linagliptin had an average HbA1c reduction of 0.51% (5.6 mmol/mol). Without adjusting for age, renal function, race, and pre-index HbA1c, greater reductions in HbA1c were observed in younger versus older persons, persons with higher versus lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and AAs versus white or Asians. After multivariate analysis, variables significantly associated with a greater HbA1c reduction included higher pre-index HbA1c and older age. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the HbA1c-lowering effectiveness of linagliptin across age, race, and renal function categories among a large real-world population of adults with T2DM.

Digital Whole Slide Imaging Compared With Light Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology.

CONTEXT.­: The adoption of digital capture of pathology slides as whole slide images (WSI) for educational and research applications has proven utility. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare pathologists' primary diagnoses derived from WSI versus the standard microscope. Because WSIs differ in format and method of observation compared with the current standard glass slide microscopy, this study is critical to potential clinical adoption of digital pathology. DESIGN.­: The study enrolled a total of 2045 cases enriched for more difficult diagnostic categories and represented as 5849 slides were curated and provided for diagnosis by a team of 19 reading pathologists separately as WSI or as glass slides viewed by light microscope. Cases were reviewed by each pathologist in both modalities in randomized order with a minimum 31-day washout between modality reads for each case. Each diagnosis was compared with the original clinical reference diagnosis by an independent central adjudication review. RESULTS.­: The overall major discrepancy rates were 3.64% for WSI review and 3.20% for manual slide review diagnosis methods, a difference of 0.44% (95% CI, -0.15 to 1.03). The time to review a case averaged 5.20 minutes for WSI and 4.95 minutes for glass slides. There was no specific subset of diagnostic category that showed higher rates of modality-specific discrepancy, though some categories showed greater discrepancy than others in both modalities. CONCLUSIONS.­: WSIs are noninferior to traditional glass slides for primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin in Comparison to Sitagliptin and Saxagliptin Based on Cardiovascular Outcome Trials in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease.

INTRODUCTION: In the cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) EMPA-REG OUTCOME, TECOS and SAVOR-TIMI 53, empagliflozin [sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor], sitagliptin and saxagliptin [both dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors] + standard of care (SoC) were compared to SoC in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of empagliflozin + SoC in comparison to sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC based on the respective CVOT. METHODS: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was calibrated to reproduce the CVOT outcomes. EMPA-REG OUTCOME baseline characteristics and CVOT specific treatment effects on risk factors for cardiovascular disease [glycated haemogloblin A1c (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, lipids] were applied. Three-year observed cardiovascular events of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC were derived from EMPA-REG OUTCOME and an indirect treatment comparison. Relative risk (RR) adjustments to calibrate the CDM were estimated after consecutive attempts of running the model until the observed and CDM-predicted outcomes matched closely. The drug-specific treatment effects were considered up until treatment switch (when HbA1c reached 8.5%), after which, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 82 risk equations predicted events based on co-existing risk factors and treatment intensification to basal-bolus insulin were applied. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Costs and quality of life data were derived from UK national sources and published literature. A 50-year time horizon and discount rate of 3.5% were applied. RESULTS: The CDM projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 6.408, 5.917 and 5.704 and total costs of 50,801 GBP, 47,627 GBP and 48,071 GBP for empagliflozin + SoC, sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC, respectively. The incremental CE ratio (ICER) of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC was 6464 GBP/QALY and 3878 GBP/QALY, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that empagliflozin + SoC is cost-effective compared to sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC at a willingness to pay threshold of 20,000 GBP/QALY. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH.

Comparison of all-cause, stroke, and bleed-specific healthcare resource utilization among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: We compared healthcare utilization outcomes and persistence among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Using a nationwide, US administrative claims database, a retrospective matched-cohort of newly diagnosed NVAF patients (age≥18 years) treated with dabigatran or warfarin (propensity score matched 1:1) in 01/01/2011-12/31/2013 was evaluated. All-cause, stroke-, and bleed-specific per patient per month (PPPM) healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), incidence rate of hospitalization for stroke or bleed, 30-day readmission, and persistence were reported. RESULTS: In total, 18,890 dabigatran patients were matched to corresponding warfarin patients. Compared to warfarin users, dabigatran users PPPM had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations (0.04 vs 0.05), total outpatient visits (3.98 vs 5.87), and lower 30-day readmissions (14.5% vs 17.4%, all p < 0.001). Dabigatran users had lower incidence rate for stroke (0.65 vs 1.06) and bleed (1.69 vs 2.20), stroke (0.0006 vs 0.0011, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific hospitalizations (0.002 vs 0.003, p = 0.008), and stroke (0.03 vs 0.04, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific outpatient visits (0.07 vs 0.08, p = 0.018), and significantly lower non-persistence (62.1% vs 66.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among newly diagnosed newly treated NVAF patients, dabigatran users had significantly lower all-cause, stroke- and bleed-specific HCRU, lower risk of hospitalization for stroke or bleed events, lower 30-day readmissions, and higher persistence than warfarin users.

Factors influencing dabigatran or warfarin medication persistence in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Factors influencing differences in persistence between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remain unclear. AIM: Compare differences in persistence between new dabigatran and warfarin users in patients newly diagnosed with NVAF, adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, patient out-of-pocket cost and other covariates. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using a US claims database of Medicare and commercially insured patients with NVAF aged≥ 18 years. Persistence and monthly out-of-pocket costs for dabigatran or warfarin were calculated and adjusted for covariates using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Unadjusted persistence was significantly lower among dabigatran users (n = 1025) compared with matched warfarin users (38 vs 46%). Adjusting for covariates rendered this difference insignificant (hazard ratio = 0.930).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of -$3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested. CONCLUSIONS: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

All-Cause, Stroke-, and Bleed-Specific Healthcare Costs: Comparison among Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) Newly Treated with Dabigatran or Warfarin.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare all-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific healthcare costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Administrative claims data from the MarketScan® Databases for 2009-2014 were used. Patients with NVAF newly treated with dabigatran were matched 1:1 to those treated with warfarin. All-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($US, year 2015 values) up to a 12-month follow-up period were analyzed. Stroke- or bleed-specific costs were defined as hospitalizations with stroke or bleed as the primary discharge diagnosis and outpatient claims with stroke or bleed diagnosis in any position. Differences in costs between dabigatran and warfarin users were assessed using descriptive and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 18,980 dabigatran-treated patients were matched to corresponding warfarin-treated patients. Adjusted all-cause total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran cohort ($US3053 vs. 3433; $US904 vs. 1194; $US1594 vs. 1894, respectively; all p < 0.001), but mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher ($US556 vs. 345, p < 0.001). Stroke-specific total healthcare and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US30.37 vs. 40.99 and $US7.36 vs. 12.20, respectively; p < 0.05 for both values). Similarly, bleed-specific total healthcare and inpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US50.00 vs. 73.49 and $US27.75 vs. 48.66, respectively; p < 0.01 for both values). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving dabigatran had significantly lower total all-cause, inpatient, and outpatient costs but higher pharmacy costs than those receiving warfarin. In addition, stroke-specific total and outpatient costs and bleed-specific total and inpatient costs were significantly lower in dabigatran users compared with warfarin users.

Healthcare utilization and costs for patients initiating Dabigatran or Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) such as dabigatran, when compared to warfarin, have been shown to potentially reduce the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) together with lower healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and similar total costs. This study expands on previous work by comparing HCRU and costs for patients newly diagnosed with NVAF and newly initiated on dabigatran or warfarin, and is the first study specifically in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using data from administrative health care claims during the study period 01/01/2010-12/31/2012. Cox regression analyses were used to compare all-cause risk of first hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. Medical, pharmacy, and total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared between dabigatran and warfarin users. RESULTS: A total of 1110 patients initiated on dabigatran were propensity score-matched with corresponding patients initiated on warfarin. The mean number of hospitalizations (0.92 vs. 1.13, P = 0.012), ER visits (1.32 vs. 1.56, P < 0.01), office visits (21.43 vs. 29.41; P < 0.01), and outpatient visits (10.86 vs. 22.02; P < 0.01) were lower among dabigatran compared to warfarin users. Patients initiated on dabigatran had significantly lower risk of first all-cause ER visits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.98] compared to those initiated on warfarin. Adjusted mean pharmacy costs PPPM were significantly greater for dabigatran users ($510 vs. $250, P < 0.001); however, mean medical costs PPPM ($1912 vs. $1956, P = 0.55) and mean total costs PPPM ($2381 vs. $2183, P = 0.10) were not significantly different compared to warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran users had significantly lower HCRU compared to warfarin users. In addition, dabigatran users had lower risk of all-cause ER visits. Despite higher pharmacy costs, the two cohorts did not differ significantly in medical or total all-cause costs.

An item-level response shift study on the change of health state with the rating of asthma-specific quality of life: a report from the PROMIS(®) Pediatric Asthma Study.

PURPOSE: To examine item-level response shift associated with the change in asthma-related health state (i.e., change in asthma control status and global rating of change (GRC) in breathing problems). METHODS: Study sample comprised 238 asthmatic children who were between 8 and 17.9 years and completed the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ) symptoms, emotion function, and activity limitation domains at baseline and a follow-up assessment. Structural equation modeling was implemented to assess item-level response shift associated with the change in asthma-related health state with the adjustment for the influence of confounding variables. The magnitude of item-level response shift and its influence on the change of domain scores was estimated using Cohen's effect sizes. RESULTS: We found no instances of item-level response shift. However, two items were identified with measurement bias related to GRC due to breathing problems. Specifically, asthmatic children with better/about the same GRC due to breathing problems reported lower scores for one item in the emotional domain at follow-up compared to those with deteriorated GRC due to breathing problems. In addition, asthmatic children with better/about the same GRC due to breathing problems reported better scores for another item in the symptom domain at baseline compared to those with deteriorated GRC due to breathing problems. The impact of measurement bias was small and did not bias the change of domain scores over time. CONCLUSIONS: No item-level response shift, but two instances of measurement bias, appears in asthmatic children. However, the impact of these measurement issues is negligible.

Adolescent body weight and health-related quality of life rated by adolescents and parents: the issue of measurement bias.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is sparse about whether body weight categories in adolescents are associated with differences in pediatric HRQoL rated by adolescents and parents. Additionally, it is unknown whether HRQoL rated by individuals with different body mass index (BMI) weight categories is psychometrically comparable. This study aimed to assess whether difference in pediatric HRQoL rated by adolescents and their parents was explained by BMI weight status, and to test measurement properties of HRQoL items related to weight categories using differential item functioning (DIF) methodology. DIF refers to the situation when the individuals across subgroups rate an item differently (e.g., item score three by one subgroup and four by another) given the same underlying construct. METHODS: A cross-sectional study utilizing a sample of parents (n = 323) and their adolescents aged 15-18 years old (n = 323) who enrolled in Florida's Medicaid. Adolescent self-reports and parent proxy-reports of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory was adopted to measure pediatric HRQoL. We classified body weight categories as normal weight, overweight, and obesity. A Multiple Indicator Multiple Cause (MIMIC) method was used to assess DIF associated with BMI weight status, especially testing the disparity in the parameters of different weight categories (reference: lower weight category) associated with a response to a HRQoL item conditioning on the same underlying HRQoL. DIF analyses were conducted by adolescent self-reports and parent proxy-reports. RESULTS: Parents reported lower pediatric HRQoL across all domains than adolescents did. Excess body weight (combined overweight and obese) was significantly associated with a greater discrepancy in the rating of emotional and total functioning between adolescents and parents (p < 0.05). DIF associated with BMI weight categories was identified by two items in adolescent self-reports and five items in parent proxy-reports. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents' BMI weight categories significantly contribute to a difference in the rating of pediatric HRQoL by adolescents and parents.

The relationship between four health-related quality-of-life indicators and use of mammography and Pap test screening in US women.

PURPOSE: Limited evidence is available to explain the role of four components of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on breast and cervical cancer screening. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between four HRQoL aspects and use of mammography and Pap test screening in US women. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The outcome variables were receiving mammogram <2 versus ≥2 years in women aged 50-74 years, and receiving Pap test <3 versus ≥3 years in women aged 18-64 years. Eight logistic regression models were conducted to test the role of four HRQoL aspects (general health status, physical HRQoL, mental HRQoL, and activity limitation) on the two screening variables, after adjusting for covariates. Statistical analysis accounted for the complex sampling design of the BRFSS, and the a priori alpha error was set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Among respondents, approximately 74 and 78 % of the women received mammography and Pap test, respectively. Three HRQoL aspects (general health status, physical HRQoL, and activity limitation) were significantly associated with mammography use (all p values < 0.05), whereas two HRQoL aspects (general health status and physical HRQoL) were significantly associated with Pap test (p values ≤ 0.05). All significant relationships demonstrated higher cancer screening rates among individuals with better HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL is an important factor associated with use of mammography and Pap test. Future studies should explore the mechanisms associated with an individual's HRQoL and use HRQoL assessment as an avenue to influence adherence to use of mammography and Pap tests.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of allopurinol versus febuxostat in chronic gout patients: a U.S. payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Gout is a chronic inflammatory condition associated with poor urate metabolism. Xanthine oxidase inhibitors such as allopurinol and febuxostat are recommended to reduce uric acid levels and to prevent gout attacks in adult patients. Under budget-driven constraints, health care payers are faced with the broader challenge of assessing the economic value of these agents for formulary placement. However, the economic value of allopurinol versus febuxostat has not be assessed in patients with gout over a 5-year time period in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of allopurinol versus febuxostat in adult patients with gout over a 5-year time period from a U.S. health care payer's perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the total direct costs and success of serum uric acid (sUA) level reduction associated with allopurinol and febuxostat. Treatment success was defined as patient achievement of a sUA level less than 6 mg/dL (0.36 mmol/L) at 6 months. Event probabilities were based on published phase III randomized clinical trials and included long-term sequelae from open-label extension studies. A hypothetical cohort of 1,000 adult gout patients with sUA levels of ≥ 8 mg/dL (0.48 mmol/L) who had received either allopurinol 300 mg or febuxostat 80 mg at model entry transitioned among the 4 health states defined by treatment success, treatment failure and switch, treatment dropout, and death. The length of each Markov cycle was 6 months. Costs were gathered from the RED BOOK, Medicare fee schedules, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample, and for a limited number of inputs, expert consultation. Direct costs included treatment drug costs, costs for prophylaxis drugs, diagnostic laboratory tests, and the treatment and management of acute gout flare. Resource utilization was based on clinical evidence and expert consultation. All costs were inflated to 2014 U.S. dollars and were discounted at 3% in the base case. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The total per patient cost incurred over 5 years was $50,295 for febuxostat and $48,413 for allopurinol, with an incremental total cost of $1,882. The expected percentage of treatment success during the 5-year period was 72 for febuxostat and 42 for allopurinol, resulting in an incremental percentage of treatment success of 30. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for febuxostat compared with allopurinol was $6,322 per treatment success over a 5-year time period. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were sensitive to probability of treatment success for allopurinol, probability of treatment dropouts for both allopurinol and febuxostat, and the probability of failure and switch to allopurinol. PSAs demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per treatment success, febuxostat was cost-effective compared with allopurinol. CONCLUSIONS: Febuxostat was found to be a cost-effective option compared with allopurinol based on a U.S. payer perspective.