Longitudinal Analysis of the Care Pathway of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in the US.

Background: Evidence regarding the frequency and timing of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) fails to offer clear consensus. We describe the LSS care journey from initial diagnosis to first surgical intervention. Methods: Using Medicare claims database from 2009 through 2020, we identified patients who were diagnosed with LSS. The use and timing of conservative and surgical treatments during the entire follow-up from the initial diagnosis were reported. Results: Of the 143,849 patients identified, 68% received conservative care within 8.4 months and 25.3% received a surgical or minimally invasive intervention over 5.7 years following initial diagnosis, with 12.6% undergoing open decompression alone, 10.2% undergoing open decompression with fusion, and 5.1% undergoing fusion surgery alone. Fewer than 1% were provided with interspinous spacers or a percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression. Conclusion: Approximately three-quarters of patients in the study received no surgical or non-invasive interventions for approximately six years following diagnosis with LSS.

Long-Term Reductions in Opioid Medication Use After Spinal Stimulation: A Claims Analysis Among Commercially-Insured Population.

Purpose: Chronic, non-cancer pain significantly and negatively impacts patient quality of life. Neuromodulation is a major component of multi-modal interdisciplinary approaches to chronic pain management, which includes opioid and nonopioid medications. In randomized controlled trials, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to reduce pain and decrease short-term opioid use for patients. This study sought to evaluate the effect of SCS on longer term opioid and non-opioid pain medication usage among patients over ≥3 years of follow-up. Patients and Methods: Claims analysis was conducted using the Merative™ MarketScan® Commercial Database. Patients aged ≥18 who initiated SCS between 1/1/2010 and 3/31/2021 with ≥1 year of baseline data and ≥3 years of follow-up data were included. Opioid discontinuation, daily dose (DD) reduction, proportion of days covered (PDC), concomitant co-medication with benzodiazepines and/or gabapentinoids, and polypharmacy were evaluated during the baseline and follow-up periods. Adjusted logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of baseline dosages on discontinuation and dose reduction. Results: During follow-up, 60% of 2,669 SCS patients either discontinued opioid use or reduced opioid DD by at least 20% from baseline; another 15% reduced DD by 1-19%. Logistic regression showed patients with higher baseline dosages were less likely to discontinue opioids completely (odds ratio[OR] 95% confidence intervals[CI]: 0.31[0.18,0.54]) but more likely to reduce their daily dose (OR[CI]: 7.14[4.00,12.73], p<0.001). Mean PDC with opioids decreased from 0.58 (210 of 365 days) at baseline to 0.51 at year 3 (p<0.001). With SCS, co-medication with benzodiazepines decreased from 47.3% at baseline to 30.3% at year 3, co-medication with gabapentinoids reduced from 58.6% to 42.2%, and polypharmacy dropped from 15.6% to 9.6% (all p<0.001). Conclusion: Approximately three-quarters of patients who received SCS therapy either discontinued or reduced systemic opioid use over the study period. SCS could assist in reducing long-term reliance on opioids and other pain medications to treat chronic non-cancer pain.

Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically begins with conservative care and progresses to minimally invasive procedures, including interspinous spacer without decompression or fusion (ISD) or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). This study examined safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures among LSS patients receiving an ISD versus MILD as the first surgical intervention. METHODS: 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files were used to identify patients with an ISD or MILD (first procedure=index date) from 2017 to 2021. ISD and MILD patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching based on demographics and clinical characteristics. Safety outcomes and subsequent spinal procedures were captured from index date until end of follow-up. Cox models were used to analyze rates of subsequent surgical interventions, LSS-related interventions, open decompression, fusion, ISD, and MILD. Cox models were used to assess postoperative complications during follow-up and logistic regression to analyze life-threatening complications within 30 days of index procedure. RESULTS: A total of 3682 ISD and 5499 MILD patients were identified. After matching, 3614 from each group were included in the analysis (mean age=74 years, mean follow-up=20.0 months). The risk of undergoing any intervention, LSS-related intervention, open decompression, and MILD were 21%, 28%, 21%, and 81% lower among ISD compared with MILD patients. Multivariate analyses showed no significant differences in the risk of undergoing fusion or ISD, experiencing postoperative complications, or life-threatening complications (all p≥0.241) between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed ISD and MILD procedures have an equivalent safety profile. However, ISDs demonstrated lower rates of open decompression and MILD.

Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Complications and Subsequent Interventions Following Stand-Alone Interspinous Spacers, Open Decompression, or Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: For individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), minimally invasive procedures such as an interspinous spacer device without decompression or fusion (ISD) or open surgery (i.e., open decompression or fusion) may relieve symptoms and improve functions when patients fail to respond to conservative therapies. This research compares longitudinal postoperative outcomes and rates of subsequent interventions between LSS patients treated with ISD and those with open decompression or fusion as their first surgical intervention. METHODS: This retrospective, comparative claims analysis identified patients age ≥ 50 years with LSS diagnosis and with a qualifying procedure during 2017-2021 in the Medicare database which includes healthcare encounters in inpatient and outpatient settings. Patients were followed from the qualifying procedure until end of data availability. The outcomes assessed during the follow-up included subsequent surgical interventions, including subsequent fusion and lumbar spine surgeries, long-term complications, and short-term life-threatening events. Additionally, the costs to Medicare during a 3-year follow-up were calculated. Cox proportional hazards, logistic regression, and generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes and costs, adjusted for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 400,685 patients who received a qualifying procedure were identified (mean age 71.5 years, 50.7% male). Compared to ISD patients, patients receiving open surgery (i.e., decompression and/or fusion) were more likely to have a subsequent fusion [hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.49 (1.17, 1.89)-2.54 (2.00, 3.23)] or other lumbar spine surgery [HR (CI): 3.05 (2.18, 4.27)-5.72 (4.08, 8.02)]. Short-term life-threatening events [odds ratio (CI): 2.42 (2.03, 2.88)-6.36 (5.33, 7.57)] and long-term complications [HR (CI): 1:31 (1.13, 1.52)-2.38 (2.05, 2.75)] were more likely among the open surgery cohorts. Adjusted mean index costs were lowest for decompression alone (US$7001) and highest for fusion alone ($33,868). ISD patients had significantly lower 1-year complication-related costs than all surgery cohorts and lower 3-year all-cause costs than fusion cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: ISD resulted in lower risks of short- and long-term complications and lower long-term costs than open decompression and fusion surgeries as a first surgical intervention for LSS.

Productivity Loss and Indirect Costs for Patients Newly Diagnosed with Early- versus Late-Stage Cancer in the USA: A Large-Scale Observational Research Study.

BACKGROUND: The total economic burden of cancer reflects direct and indirect costs, including productivity loss due to employment change, absenteeism, and presenteeism of patients and caregivers. OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the magnitude of employment decrease, work absence (WA), short-term disability (STD), long-term disability (LTD), and associated indirect costs among employees newly diagnosed with metastatic versus non-metastatic cancer in the USA. METHODS: IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Health and Productivity Management databases were used to identify employees aged 18-64 years and newly diagnosed with any cancer from 2009 to 2019. Proportions of patients with employment decrease, WA, STD, and LTD claims, and number of days missing from work were summarized by metastatic status during the first 12 months after diagnosis and the entire follow-up period. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age (< 50 years, ≥ 50 years) and cancer type (breast, lung, colon, pancreatic, and liver cancer). RESULTS: During the first year after diagnosis, compared to patients without metastases, significantly higher proportions of patients with metastases had employment decrease and STD or LTD claims (p < 0.001). The mean total number of days missing from work for patients with versus without metastases was 33.39 versus 14.91 (ratio = 2.40), 64.05 versus 27.15 (ratio = 2.36), and 105.93 versus 46.29 (ratio = 2.29) days within 3, 6, and 12 months after diagnosis, respectively. Estimates of indirect cost differences between the two groups ranged from $6,877 to $22,283 in the first year. CONCLUSION: Earlier detection of cancer may reduce productivity loss of patients and indirect costs by initiating treatment before cancer progresses to late stage.

The Impact of Allergy Specialty Care on Health Care Utilization Among Peanut Allergy Children in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The influence of allergist management on peanut allergy (PA)-related health care utilization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether allergist care lowers PA costs. METHODS: IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was analyzed for PA diagnosis/reaction-related codes (January 2010-June 2019) in patients 64 years or younger, with demographically matched non-PA food allergy controls (NPAFACs). Outcomes were measured and compared 12 months before/after first claim date. RESULTS: Among 72,854 persons with PA (39,068 with ≥1 allergist visit, 53.6%), and 166,825 NPAFACs, the number of National Drug Codes and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes was higher for persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit during both baseline and follow-up (all P < .001). Persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit were prescribed epinephrine at significantly higher rates (RR, 1.67; P < .001). Rates of epinephrine claims, mean epinephrine costs, and proportion with peanut anaphylaxis were higher among the PA group with versus without an allergist visit (69.9% vs 63.3%; $676 vs $493, 48.9% vs 20.7%; all P < .001). The proportion with anaphylaxis episodes was higher in the PA group versus the NPAFAC group (53.1% vs 31.6%; P < .001). Total health care costs were higher in the NPAFAC group versus the PA group ($7863 vs $7261; P < .001) and lower for persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit ($6347 vs $8270; P < .001), with no significant differences in PA reaction-related costs between PA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of anaphylaxis were seen among the PA group with versus without an allergist visit during the follow-up period (53.6% of overall PA group). Allergist care was associated with a reduction in total health care costs and higher rates of epinephrine prescription.

Long-term direct and indirect economic burden associated with osteoporotic fracture in US postmenopausal women.

The study examined long-term direct and indirect economic burden of osteoporotic fractures among postmenopausal women. Healthcare costs among fracture patients were substantial in first year after fracture and remained higher than fracture-free controls for 5 years which highlight needs for early detection of high-risk patients and continued management for osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: This study compared direct and indirect healthcare costs between postmenopausal women and demographically matched controls in the 5 years after incident non-traumatic fracture, and by fracture type in commercially insured and Medicare populations. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-six thousand one hundred ninety women (91,925 aged 50-64 years; 134,265 aged ≥ 65 years) with incident non-traumatic fracture (hip, vertebral, and non-hip non-vertebral (NHNV)) from 2008 to 2017 were identified. Patients with fracture were directly matched (1:1) to non-fracture controls based on demographic characteristics. Direct healthcare costs were assessed using general linear models, adjusting for baseline costs, comorbidities, osteoporosis diagnosis, and treatment. Indirect costs associated with work loss due to absenteeism and short-term disability (STD) were assessed among commercially insured patients. Costs were standardized to 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: Osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment rates prior to fracture were low. Patients with fracture incurred higher direct costs across 5-year post-index compared with non-fracture controls, regardless of fracture type or insurance. For commercially insured hip fracture patients, the mean adjusted incremental direct healthcare costs in years 1, 3, and 5 were $59,327, $6885, and $3241, respectively. Incremental costs were lower, but trends were similar for vertebral and NHNV fracture types and Medicare-insured patients. Commercially insured patients with fracture had higher unadjusted indirect costs due to absenteeism and STD in year 1 and higher adjusted indirect costs due to STD at year 1 (incremental cost $5848, $2748, and $2596 for hip, vertebral, and NHNV fracture). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable and sustained economic burden after a non-traumatic fracture underscores the need for early patient identification and continued management.

Ixekizumab treatment patterns and healthcare utilization and costs for patients with psoriasis.

Objectives: To describe ixekizumab treatment patterns, all-cause healthcare utilization, and costs among psoriasis patients.Methods: Adults diagnosed with psoriasis having ≥1 ixekizumab claim were selected from MarketScan® databases between March 01, 2016 and July 31, 2017. Patients were continuously enrolled for ≥6 months prior and ≥3 months after the index date (first ixekizumab claim) and followed until inpatient death, end of enrollment, or end of data. Treatment patterns included persistence, switching, and re-initiation. All-cause utilization and costs were reported per-patient-per-month (PPPM).Results: 801 patients (mean age 49 years; 55.8% male; median follow-up 201 days) were included. Among all patients, 87.4% were persistent (mean (median) duration 86 (75) days) Of the 12.6% of patients who discontinued ixekizumab, 11.9% re-initiated and 6.9% switched treatments. Mean (median) time to switching was 208 (206) days. Mean number of all-cause inpatient admissions and physician office visits PPPM were 0.01 and 0.72, respectively. Mean total cost PPPM was $8,371, of which pharmacy comprised $7,792. Ixekizumab costs, $7,079, occurred primarily during induction and were paid predominantly by health plans ($6,810 [96.2%]).Conclusion: Most (87.4%) ixekizumab users remained persistent during follow-up. Pharmacy was the primary driver of total healthcare costs, with the majority covered by health plans and <4% as patient out-of-pocket expense.

Commercial claims costs related to health care resource use associated with a diagnosis of peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy (PA) affects approximately 1.6 million US children. The current standard of care is strict avoidance and prompt reaction treatment. Peanut allergy health care costs and health care resource utilization (HCRU) are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To estimate PA health care costs and HCRU using a nationally representative commercial payer database. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was examined for PA diagnosis/reaction codes between January 2010 and October 2016 in patients 64 years of age or younger, with age cohort-matched controls. Outcomes were measured 12 months before and after the first claim date. Health care costs and HCRU were compared using Student's t tests and χ2 tests. RESULTS: Patients with a PA-related diagnostic code (n = 41,675) incurred almost double all-cause health care costs vs controls ($6436 vs $3493, P < .001), mainly from inpatient and outpatient medical costs ($5002 vs $2832, P < .001). More than one third of the PA group patients (36%) had a code indicative of an anaphylactic reaction during follow-up. Mean PA or reaction-related code costs per visit totaled $7921 for hospitalizations and $1115 for emergency department (ED) visits. Costs were 30% lower in patients with asthma codes without PA codes vs those with both codes ($5678 vs $8112, P < .001); all-cause ED costs were more than double in patients with atopic dermatitis codes with PA codes vs those without PA codes ($654 vs $308, P < .001). CONCLUSION: National commercial payer claims data indicate a significant health care burden associated with a PA-related code, including over $6400/patient in annual all-cause costs and increased health care utilization.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with multiple myeloma with and without skeletal-related events.

AIM: To compare healthcare resource use and costs between newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients with and without skeletal-related events (SREs). METHODS: Adults newly diagnosed with MM (1 January 2006 and 30 June 2017) with at least 12 months continuous health coverage prior to diagnosis were identified using the IBM MarketScan administrative claims. To control for baseline differences, NDMM patients with SREs were propensity score matched to NDMM patients without SREs. Outcomes included annual HRU and costs during follow-up along with number and type of SREs (SRE cohort only). Patients with SREs were stratified by number of SREs, and annual SRE-related costs were reported. Student's t test and Chi-squared test were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Before matching, the 6648 patients in the SRE cohort had more comorbidities, were more likely to have MM treatment, and had higher pre-index healthcare costs than the 7458 patients in the non-SRE cohort. After matching, cohorts of 3432 patients were well balanced on baseline characteristics. Patients with SREs (vs. without SREs) had significantly higher inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy HRU. Patients with SREs had significantly higher mean annual all-cause healthcare costs ($213,361 vs. $94,896, p < 0.001) with hospitalization being the leading driver of increased costs (38.7% of total). Among 6648 patients with SREs, the mean annual SRE-related healthcare costs were $39,603, $45,463, and $50,111 for patients with one, two, and three or more events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: NDMM patients with SREs have more than twice the all-cause healthcare costs than matched patients without SREs. Costs increase with the number of SRE events.

Risk of Potential Glucocorticoid-Related Adverse Events in Patients with Giant Cell Arteritis: Results from a USA-Based Electronic Health Records Database.

INTRODUCTION: Oral glucocorticoids (GC) have been the mainstay of treatment for giant cell arteritis (GCA). We estimated the risk and dose-effect relationship of potential GC-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with GCA. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study utilized data from the IBM Explorys Electronic Health Records database from 2008 through 2016. Inclusion criteria included the presence of at least two GCA diagnostic codes in subjects aged 50 or older along with supporting laboratory [C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)], prescription data on oral GCs, and at least 12 months of follow-up before and after the first oral GC prescription for GCA (index date). Potential AEs captured on the basis of new diagnoses, prescriptions, and laboratory tests were assessed during the 12 months post-index date. Results were descriptively summarized across cohorts according to quartiles (Q) of mean daily GC dose measured over the first 6 months of follow-up (Q1, ≥ 1.00 to ≤ 13.75 mg; Q2, > 13.75 to ≤ 25.00 mg; Q3, > 25.00 to ≤ 40.00 mg; Q4, > 40.00 mg). RESULTS: We identified 785 eligible patients with GCA. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 76 (9) years and 70% were female. The mean oral GC dose during the first 6 months post-index was 28.9 mg/day. A dose-effect response was observed from Q1 to Q4 in the following potential GC-related AEs: newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes/HbA1c > 7.5% (range 7.5-24.5%), blood glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL (range 7.5-15%), serious infection (range 16.8-24.8%), cataracts (range 12.0-21.7%), gastrointestinal bleed/ulcer (range 6.0-11.8%), and increase in BMI ≥ 5 units (range 4.1-6.4). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GCA, potential GC-related AEs increased with higher daily oral GC doses. This highlights the need for effective therapies that reduce GC exposure and toxicity. FUNDING: Genentech, Inc.

Revascularization Rates and Associated Costs in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Initiating Ranolazine Versus Traditional Antianginals as Add-on Therapy.

To assess the frequency and costs of revascularization procedures in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) initiating ranolazine versus traditional antianginals. Adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of SIHD who initiated ranolazine or a traditional antianginal (beta-blocker [BB], calcium channel blocker [CCB], or long-acting nitrate [LAN]) as second or third line therapy between 2008 and 2016, were selected from the IBM MarketScan Databases. Inverse probability weighting based on propensity score was employed to balance the ranolazine and traditional antianginals cohorts on patient clinical characteristics. Outcomes assessed were frequency and total cost of revascularization procedures over a 12-month follow-up. A total of 108,741 patients with SIHD were included. Of these, 18% initiated treatment with ranolazine, 21% received BBs, 24% received CCBs, and 37% were treated with LANs. Revascularization rates were significantly lower in ranolazine patients (11%) than in BB (16%) and LAN (14%) patients (both p <0.001), and more comparable to CCB patients (10%; p = 0.007). Compared with BB and LAN, those in the ranolazine cohort were less likely to have a revascularization procedure during hospitalization and had a shorter length of stay if hospitalized (all p <0.001). The mean healthcare costs associated with revascularization were lower in ranolazine patients ($2,933) than in BB ($4,465) and LAN ($3,609) patients (p <0.001), but similar to CCB patients ($2,753; p = 0.29). In conclusion, ranolazine treatment in patients with SIHD was associated with fewer revascularization procedures and lower associated healthcare costs compared with patients initiating BB or LAN, and comparable to patients initiating CCBs.

Everolimus compliance and persistence among tuberous sclerosis complex patients with renal angiomyolipoma or subependymal giant cell astrocytoma.

OBJECTIVE: Everolimus is the only FDA approved drug to treat renal angiomyolipoma or subependymal giant-cell astrocytoma (SEGA) in tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). Potential differences exist between patients with commercial and Medicaid insurance on everolimus use; however, there is limited information from the real world. This study compared compliance and persistence of everolimus between commercial and Medicaid patients using US claims data. METHODS: Patients with ≥1 claim of TSC with renal angiomyolipoma or SEGA were selected from the MarketScan commercial (1 January 2009-31 August 2016) and Medicaid (1 January 2009-30 June 2015) databases. Patients were followed from index date (the earliest date of TSC, renal angiomyolipoma or SEGA diagnosis) to death or end of data. Non-persistence, defined as ≥60 day gap without everolimus, and medication possession ratio (MPR) were assessed among the subset of patients with ≥1 year of follow-up from the first everolimus claim. RESULTS: A total of 1497 TSC patients met the study criteria (896 renal angiomyolipoma only, 411 SEGA only and 190 both). Compared to Medicaid patients (N = 513), commercial patients (N = 984) had the same ages (22 years) but a shorter length of follow-up (38 vs. 48 months, p < .001). Medicaid and commercial patients had similar rates of being treated with everolimus (14.4% vs. 13.6%, p = .668), but it took Medicaid patients a longer time to start everolimus (871 vs. 704 days, p < .001). Although the non-persistence rate was not significantly different between commercial and Medicaid patients (42.5% vs. 35.1%, p = .561), the number of days from everolimus initiation to non-persistence was significantly lower for commercial patients (945 vs. 1132, p < .001). During the 1 year post everolimus initiation, commercial patients had a significantly higher MPR (0.81 vs. 0.74, p < .001) and higher percentage of patients with MPR ≥0.80 (67.8% vs. 58.1%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among TSC patients with renal angiomyolipoma or SEGA and treated with everolimus, everolimus MPR was between 0.74 and 0.81. Medicaid patients had lower MPR than commercial patients but better persistence.

Comparison of treatment patterns and economic outcomes among metastatic pancreatic cancer patients initiated on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy. RESULTS: 550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Methods Used and Topics Addressed in Quantitative Health Research on Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Research on sexual minority men (gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men) was examined with regard to the measures of sexual orientation used, the methods of research, and the main health outcomes under study. A systematic review of English-language quantitative studies was conducted focused on the health of sexual minority men published in 2010 (n = 250). The results provide a snapshot of the literature and revealed that research on sexual minority men overwhelmingly focused on HIV, STIs, and sexual health for which sexual orientation was most commonly defined behaviorally. For topics of mental health or body/fitness outcomes, sexual orientation was most commonly defined by identity. Most study samples were venue-based, and only 8.8% of published papers drew data from population-based samples. The findings suggest that there exists a need for research on sexual minority men's health beyond STIs and HIV that will examine mental and physical health outcomes beyond sexual risk, uses probability-based samples, and addresses intersectional concerns related to race/ethnicity and age.

Shorter Hospital Stays and Lower Costs for Rivaroxaban Compared With Warfarin for Venous Thrombosis Admissions.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, results in a substantial healthcare system burden. This retrospective observational study compared hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospitalization costs for patients with venous thromboembolism treated with rivaroxaban versus those treated with warfarin. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations for adult patients with a primary diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism who were initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin were selected from MarketScan's Hospital Drug Database between November 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013. Patients treated with warfarin were matched 1:1 to patients treated with rivaroxaban using exact and propensity score matching. Hospital LOS, time from first dose to discharge, and hospitalization costs were reported descriptively and with generalized linear models (GLMs). The final study cohorts each included 1223 patients (751 with pulmonary embolism and 472 with deep vein thrombosis). Cohorts were well matched for demographic and clinical characteristics. Mean (±SD) LOS was 3.7±3.1 days for patients taking rivaroxaban and 5.2±3.7 days for patients taking warfarin, confirmed by GLM-adjusted results (rivaroxaban 3.7 days, warfarin 5.3 days, P<0.001). Patients with provoked venous thromboembolism admissions showed longer LOSs (rivaroxaban 5.1±4.5 days, warfarin 6.5±5.6 days, P<0.001) than those with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (rivaroxaban 3.3±2.4 days, warfarin 4.8±2.8 days, P<0.001). Days from first dose to discharge were 2.4±1.7 for patients treated with rivaroxaban and 3.9±3.7 for patients treated with warfarin when initiated with parenteral anticoagulants (P<0.001), and 2.7±1.7 and 3.7±2.1, respectively, when initiated without parenteral anticoagulants (P<0.001). Patients initiated on rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower mean total hospitalization costs ($8688±$9927 versus $9823±$9319, P=0.004), confirmed by modeling (rivaroxaban $8387 [95% confidence interval, $8035-$8739]; warfarin $10 275 [95% confidence interval, $9842-$10 708]). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower hospitalization costs compared with warfarin.

Pulmonary Embolism Inpatients Treated With Rivaroxaban Had Shorter Hospital Stays and Lower Costs Compared With Warfarin.

PURPOSE: Using real-world data, this study compares inpatient length of stay (LOS) and costs for patients with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) initiating treatment with oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban versus warfarin. METHODS: Hospitalizations from MarketScan's Hospital Drug Database were selected from November 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013, for adults with a primary diagnosis of PE initiating treatment with rivaroxaban or warfarin. Warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients using exact and propensity score matching. Hospital LOS, treatment patterns, and hospitalization costs were evaluated. FINDINGS: Matched cohorts included 751 rivaroxaban-treated patients and 751 warfarin-treated patients. Adjusted mean LOS was 3.77 days for rivaroxaban patients (95% CI, 3.66-3.87 days) and 5.48 days for warfarin patients (95% CI, 5.33-5.63 days; P < .001). Mean (SD) LOS was shorter for patients taking rivaroxaban whether admission was for provoked PE (rivaroxaban: 5.2 [5.1] days; warfarin: 7.0 [6.5] days; P < .001) or unprovoked PE (rivaroxaban: 3.4 [2.3] days; warfarin: 5.1 [2.7] days; P < .001). Mean (SD) days from first dose to discharge were 2.5 (1.7) (rivaroxaban) and 4.0 (2.9) (warfarin) when initiated with parenteral anticoagulants (P < .001) and 2.7 (1.7) (rivaroxaban) and 4.0 (2.2) (warfarin) without parenteral anticoagulants (P < .001). The rivaroxaban cohort incurred significantly lower unadjusted mean (SD) hospitalization costs (rivaroxaban: $8473 [$9105]; warfarin: $10,291 [$9185]; P < .001), confirmed by covariate adjustment with generalized linear modeling estimating predicted mean hospitalization costs of $8266 for rivaroxaban patients (95% CI, $7851-$8681) and $10,511 for warfarin patients (95% CI, $10,031-$10,992; P < .001). IMPLICATIONS: patients with PE treated with rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs by $2245 per admission compared with patients treated with warfarin, which was attributable to cost offsets from 1.71 fewer days of stay in the hospital.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today's cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS2 scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy - edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) - for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for "highly cost-effective", "cost-effective", and "not cost-effective" treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. RESULTS: Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) to rivaroxaban in 88.4% of 10,000 simulations. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that the once-daily edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) regimen is a cost-saving or highly cost-effective treatment relative to rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with CHADS2 ≥2.