Racial variation in healthcare resource utilization and expenditures in knee/hip osteoarthritis patients: a retrospective analysis of a Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability. Prior studies have documented racial disparities in the clinical management of OA. The objective of this study was to assess the racial variations in the economic burden of osteoarthritis within the Medicaid population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database (2012-2019). Newly diagnosed, adult, knee and/or hip OA patients were identified and followed for 24 months. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected at baseline; outcomes, including OA treatments and healthcare resource use (HCRU) and expenditures, were assessed during the 24-month follow-up. We compared baseline patient characteristics, use of OA treatments, and HCRU and costs in OA patients by race (White vs. Black; White vs. Other) and evaluated racial differences in healthcare costs while controlling for underlying differences. The multivariable models controlled for age, sex, population density, health plan type, presence of non-knee/hip OA, cardiovascular disease, low back pain, musculoskeletal pain, presence of moderate to severe OA, and any pre-diagnosis costs. RESULTS: The cohort was 56.7% White, 39.9% Black and 3.4% of Other race (American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, two or more races and other). Most patients (93.8%) had pharmacologic treatment for OA. Inpatient admission during the 24-month follow-up period was lowest among Black patients (25.8%, p < .001 White vs. Black). In multivariable-adjusted models, mean all-cause expenditures were significantly higher in Black patients ($25,974) compared to White patients ($22,913, p < .001). There were no significant differences between White patients and patients of Other race ($22,352). CONCLUSIONS: The higher expenditures among Black patients were despite a lower rate of inpatient admission in Black patients and comparable length and number of hospitalizations in Black and White patients, suggesting that other unmeasured factors may be driving the increased costs among Black OA patients.

Higher healthcare costs were observed in Black Medicaid patients with knee/hip osteoarthritis despite lower rates of inpatient admission. We observed these differences in this Medicaid population, where socioeconomic status is more homogeneous.Black patients had significantly higher healthcare costs compared to White patients and the difference persisted even after accounting for underlying differences in Black and White patients.Higher healthcare costs among Black patients were found in both the baseline and follow-up periods overall for all types of healthcare (hospitalizations, ER, office visit, other services).Higher hospitalization costs in Black patients were observed despite lower rates of hospitalizations in Black patients. These increased costs cannot be attributed to either longer or more frequent hospitalizations; no significant difference in either the length of stay or the number of hospitalizations was observed when comparing Black patients to White patients.

Prescription opioid utilization patterns, and associated outcomes, among privately insured patients prescribed opioids to manage pain associated with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe utilization patterns, negative clinical outcomes and economic burden of patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and/or knee who received a prescription for tramadol or non-tramadol opioids vs. non-opioid drugs. METHODS: Optum Healthcare Solutions, Inc. commercial claims data were used (1/2012--3/2017). Adults with ≥2 diagnoses of OA of the hip and/or knee, and ≥30 days supply of pain medications were identified during the three-year period from the date of first prescription (index date) after the first OA diagnosis. Drug utilization statistics in the follow-up period were summarized by initial treatment (i.e. tramadol, non-tramadol opioids, non-opioid drugs). Opioid initiators were matched to those initiated on non-opioid treatments using a propensity score model accounting for baseline characteristics. Matched pairs analysis compared outcomes for these cohorts. RESULTS: Of 62,715 total patients, 15,270 (24.3%) initiated treatment with opioids, including 3,513 (5.6%) on tramadol and 11,757 (18.7%) on non-tramadol opioids. Opioid initiators had more comorbidities, higher baseline healthcare costs, and were more likely to have OA of the hip. Among non-opioid initiators, 27.5% switched to tramadol and 63% switched to non-tramadol opioids. Among tramadol initiators, 71% switched to non-tramadol opioids. Patients initiated on opioids had 20.4% (p < .01) higher all-cause healthcare costs and higher percentages experiencing multiple negative clinical outcomes (all p < .01) compared to matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with OA of the hip and/or knee either initiate on or switch to opioids for long-term management of OA-related pain despite known risks. This highlights the need for new treatments that delay or prevent use of opioids.

Economic burden of osteoarthritis - multi-country estimates of direct and indirect costs from the BISCUITS study.

Data from 'BISCUITS', a large Nordic cohort study linking several registries, were used to estimate differences in average direct and indirect costs between patients with osteoarthritis and controls (matched 1:1 based on birth year and sex) from the general population in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark for 2017. Patients ≥18 years with ≥1 diagnosis of osteoarthritis (ICD-10: M15-M19) recorded in specialty or primary care (the latter available for a subset of patients in Sweden and for all patients in Finland) during 2011-2017 were included. Patients with a cancer diagnosis (ICD-10: C00-C43/C45-C97) were excluded. Productivity loss (sick leave and disability pension) and associated indirect costs were estimated among working-age adults (18-66 years). In 2017, average annual incremental direct costs among adults with osteoarthritis (n=1,157,236) in specialty care relative to controls ranged between €1,259 and €1,693 (p<0.001) per patient across all countries. Total average annual incremental costs were €3,224-€4,969 (p<0.001) per patient. Healthcare cost differences were mainly explained by osteoarthritis patients having more surgeries. However, among patients with both primary and secondary care data, primary care costs exceeded the costs of surgery. Primary care constituted 41 and 29 % of the difference in direct costs in Sweden and Finland, respectively. From a societal perspective, the total economic burden of osteoarthritis is substantial, and the incremental cost was estimated to €1.1-€1.3 billion yearly for patients in specialty care across the Nordic countries. When including patients in primary care, incremental costs rose to €3 billion in Sweden and €1.8 billion in Finland. Given the large economic impact, finding cost-effective and safe therapeutic strategies for these patients will be important.

Burden of disease and management of osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain: healthcare utilization and sick leave in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark (BISCUITS): study design and patient characteristics of a real world data study.

OBJECTIVES: Osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are common musculoskeletal disorders with substantial patient and societal burden. Nordic administrative registers offer a unique opportunity to study the impact of these conditions in the real-world setting. The Burden of Disease and Management of Osteoarthritis and Chronic Low Back Pain: Health Care Utilization and Sick Leave in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark (BISCUITS) study was designed to study disease prevalence and the societal and economic burden in broad OA and CLBP populations. METHODS: Patients in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark with diagnoses of OA or CLBP (low back pain record plus ≥2 pain relief prescriptions to indicate chronicity) were identified in specialty care, in primary care (Sweden and Finland) and in a quality-of-care register (Sweden). Matched controls were identified for the specialty care cohort. Longitudinal data were extracted on prevalence, treatment patterns, patient-reported outcomes, social and economic burden. RESULTS: Almost 1.4 million patients with OA and 0.4 million with CLBP were identified in specialty care, corresponding to a prevalence in the Nordic countries of 6.3 and 1.9%, respectively. The prevalence increased to 11-14% for OA and almost 6% for CLBP when adding patients identified in primary care. OA patients had a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (0.66 vs. 0.46) and were using opioids (44.7 vs. 10.2%) or long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) (20.9 vs. 4.5%) more than four times as often as compared to controls. The differences were even larger for CLBP patients compared to their controls (comorbidity index 0.89 vs. 0.39, opioid use 77.7 vs. 9.4%, and long-term NSAID use 37.2 vs. 4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The BISCUITS study offers an unprecedented, longitudinal healthcare data source to quantify the real-world burden of more than 1.8 million patients with OA or CLBP across four countries. In subsequent papers we aim to explore among others additional outcomes and subgroups of patients, primarily those patients who may benefit most from better healthcare management.

Prescription patterns and predictors of unmet pain relief in patients with difficult-to-treat osteoarthritis in the Nordics: analyses from the BISCUITS study.

OBJECTIVES: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Pain is the most important symptom in OA, driving medical care, disability, reduced functionality, and decreased quality of life. The objective of this study was to describe prescription patterns of difficult-to-treat OA and explore possible predictors of unmet pain relief in Nordic patients. METHODS: This observational cohort study included patients with a confirmed diagnosis of OA (index date) in specialty care in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012 who were followed for up to 5 years. Four subgroups were pre-defined to characterize difficult-to-treat OA: (1) ≥2 chronic comorbidities in the 3-year pre-index period; (2) top 10% of healthcare resource users, 1-year post-index; (3) ≥3 types of prescription pain medications during pre-index period to first year post-index, with ≥30 days between types; (4) having a contraindication to a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Patient characteristics, prescription patterns and predictors of unmet pain relief (defined as persistent opioid use, using several types of opioids or long-term NSAID use) were analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 288,174 OA patients and the average age was 63.5 years at time of diagnosis and 58% of them were female. After 5 years, 35-50% of the patients defined as 'difficult-to-treat' had ≥1 prescription of opioids, compared to 20-25% of all OA patients (p-value <0.05). Comorbidities and disability pension were strong predictors of unmet pain relief (p-value <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a substantial use of pain medications (NSAID and opioids) in difficult-to-treat OA patients. These findings suggest that pain may be inadequately managed in a considerable number of patients with OA, particularly those with contraindications to an NSAID. A high comorbid and socioeconomic burden are relevant risk factors among patients who continue to use opioids for a long period of time.

Factors influencing quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis: analyses from the BISCUITS study.

OBJECTIVES: Osteoarthritis can have a profound effect on patients' quality of life. The Burden of Disease and Management of Osteoarthritis and Chronic Low Back Pain: Health Care Utilization and Sick Leave in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark (BISCUITS) study aimed to describe the impact of osteoarthritis on quality of life and determine the association with factors such as pain severity and pharmacological treatment. METHODS: An observational study was performed with a cross-sectional design including patients with a confirmed osteoarthritis diagnosis enrolled in the National Quality Register for Better management of patients with Osteoarthritis (BOA) between 2016 and 2017 in Sweden. Patient-reported information from BOA was linked to administrative data from three national health registers. The impact of osteoarthritis on quality of life was estimated using the EQ-5D-5L and the first developed experienced-based time-trade-off value set for Sweden to calculate the EQ-5D-5L index scores. EQ-5D-3L index scores were also estimated based on a UK hypothetical value set via a crosswalk method. Ordinary least squares regression models were used to analyse the association between quality of life and potential influencing factors. RESULTS: For the 34,254 patients evaluated, mean EQ-5D-5L index score was 0.792 (SD 0.126). Stratifications showed that the index score varied across different levels of pain severity. Increased pain severity and use of pain-relieving medications remained significantly associated with a lower quality of life index score when controlled for potential confounders. The mean EQ-5D-3L index score was 0.605 (SD 0.192). CONCLUSIONS: This large population-based study from Sweden highlights the substantial impact of osteoarthritis on quality of life amongst different patient groups and that currently available treatment options for osteoarthritis pain do not appropriately address the needs for many osteoarthritis patients.

Risk Factors Associated with Falls and Fractures Following Prescription of Opioids Among Privately Insured Patients with Osteoarthritis.

Background: While prior research has shown that patients with osteoarthritis (OA) who are prescribed opioids have higher rates of falls and fractures following drug initiation, there is a limited body of work establishing a comprehensive model of factors that influence the risk of falls or fractures among these patients. Objective: Opioids are associated with negative clinical outcomes, including increased risk of falls and fractures. This study assessed the frequency, treatment characteristics, and risk factors associated with falls or fractures among patients with OA taking opioids. Methods: Optum Healthcare Solutions, Inc data (January 2012-March 2017) were used to identify patients over 18 with at least 2 diagnoses of hip and/or knee OA, and at least 90 days' supply of opioids. Patients with cancer were excluded. Falls or fractures outcomes were assessed in the 36-month follow-up period after the date of the first opioid prescription after first OA diagnosis. Demographic, treatment, and clinical characteristics associated with falls or fractures were assessed using logistic regression. Results: Of 16 663 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 3886 (23%) had at least 1 fall or fracture during follow-up. Of these 3886 patients, 1349 (35%) had at least 1 fall with an average of 3 fall claims, and 3299 (85%) patients had at least 1 fracture with an average of 8 claims during follow-up. Spine (15.8%) and hip (12.5%) fractures were most common. Median time to fall or fracture was 18.6 and 13.9 months, respectively. Significant (P<.05) risk factors associated with at least 1 fall or fracture during the follow-up period included alcohol use (odds ratio [OR], 3.41), history of falling (OR, 2.19), non-tramadol opioid use (OR, 1.31), age (OR, 1.03), benzodiazepine use (OR, 1.21), and at least 1 osteoporosis diagnosis (OR, 2.06). Discussion: This study is among only a few that clearly identifies the substantial impact and frequency of falls and fractures associated with prescribing non-tramadol opioids to patients with OA. Findings suggest that fall or fracture risks need to be considered when managing OA pain with opioids. Conclusion: Falls and fractures impose a major clinical burden on patients prescribed opioids for OA-related pain management. Falls or fracture risks should be an important consideration in the ongoing treatment of patients with OA.

All-Cause Health Care and Work Loss Burden Associated With Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug and Opioid Treatment in Employed Patients With Osteoarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated all-cause health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs and work loss outcomes associated with pain management of employed patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. METHODS: Optum Health Care Solutions data were analyzed for employed patients prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tramadol, or nontramadol opioids following diagnoses of osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. A pre-post design was used to evaluate changes in all-cause HRU and costs, and work loss days and associated costs. RESULTS: Costs rose for patients in all three cohorts (up to 198.3% for health care costs [tramadol] and up to 178.7% for work loss costs [tramadol]). Greatest increases in all-cause HRU included inpatient visits (237.9% [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs]; 600% [tramadol]). CONCLUSIONS: Study results provide evidence of increases in all-cause HRU and costs and work loss days and associated costs.

A Retrospective Claims-Based Study Evaluating Clinical and Economic Burden Among Patients With Moderate to Severe Osteoarthritis Pain in the United States.

Background: There has been limited evaluation of medication adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and healthcare costs over time in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), and stratification by pain severity level has not been reported. Assessing such longitudinal changes may be useful to patients and healthcare providers for tracking disease progression, informing treatment options, and employing strategies to optimize patient outcomes. Objectives: To characterize treatment patterns, HCRU, and costs over time in patients with moderate to severe (MTS) OA pain in the United States. Methods: We conducted a retrospective claims analysis, using IBM® MarketScan® databases, from 2013-2018. Eligible patients were aged ≥45 years with ≥12 months pre-index (baseline) and ≥24 months (follow-up) of continuous enrollment; index date was defined as a physician diagnosis of hip or knee OA. An algorithm was employed to identify MTS OA pain patients, who were propensity score matched with patients having non-MTS OA pain. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and univariate analyses. Results: After propensity score matching, the overall OA pain cohorts consisted of 186 374 patients each: 61% were female, mean age was 63 years, and two-thirds (65.6%) were of working age (45-65 years). Sleep-related conditions, anxiety, and depression were significantly higher in the MTS OA pain cohort vs non-MTS (P<0.001). At baseline and 12- and 24-month follow-ups, receipt of prescription pain medications, HCRU, and direct medical costs were significantly higher in the MTS OA pain cohort (all P<0.01). Medication adherence was significantly higher in the MTS OA pain cohort for all medication classes except analgesics/antipyretics, which were significantly lower vs the non-MTS OA pain cohort (all P<0.0001). Conclusions: The burden of MTS OA pain is substantial, with patterns that show increasing medication use, HCRU, and costs vs non-MTS OA pain patients over time. Understanding the heterogeneity within the OA population may allow us to further appreciate the true burden of illness for patients in pain.

Drug utilization, clinical and economic outcomes of patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee treated with long-term use of traditional NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and COX-2 inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare baseline characteristics, healthcare and drug utilization, and negative clinical outcomes of commercially-insured patients diagnosed with OA of the hip and/or knee who initiated treatment on traditional oral NSAIDs (tNSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2s). METHODS: A commercial claims database (1/2012-3/2017) was used to identify patients ≥18 years old, with ≥2 diagnoses of hip and/or knee OA, and ≥90 days supply of NSAIDs. Patients were assigned to cohorts based on the type of NSAID initially prescribed and observed in the 6 months before (baseline) and 36 months after (follow-up) the date of their first NSAID prescription after the first OA diagnosis. Analyses estimated baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and follow-up period drug utilization. Logistic regressions assessed the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and acute renal failure (ARF) events. RESULTS: tNSAIDs were the most frequently prescribed treatment. During the follow-up period, less than 15% of patients prescribed tNSAIDs switched to either COX-2s or topical NSAIDs and 37% of patients prescribed a COX-2 and 56% of patients prescribed a topical NSAID switched to tNSAIDs. GI and ARF events during the follow-up period ranged from 7.3-8.1% and 8.0-11.0%, respectively, across cohorts. The tNSAIDs and COX-2s cohorts had increased risk of both types of events relative to patients prescribed topical NSAIDs, controlling for other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses characterize the long-term real-world utilization of NSAIDs and associated outcomes for patients with OA of the hip and/or knee. Study results highlight the likelihood of switching and the risk of negative clinical outcomes associated with long-term use.

Concern about addiction is associated with lower quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis: an exploratory, real-world data analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between self-reported concerns about becoming addicted to a medication and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This real-world study used patient-level cross-sectional survey data collected from the US Adelphi Disease Specific Programme (DSP). The DSP for OA selected 153 physicians who collected de-identified data on their next nine adult patients with OA. Each patient completed a disease-relevant survey, which included the Likert-scale question, "I am concerned about becoming addicted to my medicine," (CAA) with responses ranging from "completely disagree" [1] to "completely agree" [5]. HRQoL was measured by the EQ-5D-5L index value and the EQ Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A set of ordinary least squares regressions using HRQoL measures as outcomes and CAA as a continuous predictor were estimated. Standardized effect size (ES) was used to gauge the magnitude of effects. RESULTS: A total of 866 patients with OA completed the survey (female, 61.2%; White, 77.7%; mean age, 64.2 years). Of the 775 patients who completed the CAA question, almost one-third responded that they "agree" (18%) or "completely agree" (11%), while 27% responded "completely disagree" and 20% "disagree." Regression analyses found that patients who have concerns about medication addiction have significantly different EQ-5D-5L index values and EQ VAS scores compared with patients who do not have this concern (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that concern about medication addiction in patients with OA may have an impact on patient HRQoL, with more concerned patients reporting poorer HRQoL outcomes.

Clinical and economic burden of prescribing tramadol and other opioids for patients with osteoarthritis in a commercially insured population in the United States.

ABSTRACT: In 2019, the American College of Rheumatology conditionally recommended tramadol and conditionally recommended against nontramadol opioids for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. Although tramadol is known to be less prone to opioid use disorders, little is known about the differing magnitude of negative clinical outcomes, health care resource utilization, and costs of tramadol relative to nontramadol opioids. Administrative claims records for commercially insured patients with osteoarthritis who were prescribed opioids were used to compare clinical and cost outcomes during a 3-year follow-up period by conducting a pre-post analysis and a matched case-cohort analysis. Data for 14,491 patients were analyzed: 4048 (28%) were initiated on tramadol, and 10,443 (72%) were initiated on nontramadol opioids. After matching, 4048 patients per cohort were analyzed. In each empirical analysis, tramadol patients did develop opioid use disorders; however, opioid use disorder rates were 3.5-fold higher in the nontramadol cohort (1.2% vs 4.2%). In addition, rates of other opioid-related clinical outcomes (falls, fractures, nausea, fatigue, and constipation) were also directionally lower among the tramadol cohort, although quantitatively similar (<5% difference) to the nontramadol cohort. Finally, in both analyses, the nontramadol cohort incurred higher levels of inpatient and emergency department visits and all-cause costs during the 3-year follow-up period. However, tramadol patients incur a higher incremental change (+$24,013) in costs relative to their pretreatment baseline compared with nontramadol (+$18,191). These real-world findings demonstrated lower risks with tramadol relative to other opioids, albeit risks and increased health care costs were present with tramadol, highlighting the need for further strategies to improve outcomes.

A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of the Impact of Osteoarthritis on Disability Leave, Workers' Compensation Claims, and Healthcare Payments.

OBJECTIVES: Examine short-term disability (STD) and workers' compensation (WC) associated leave and wage replacements, and overall direct healthcare payments, among employees with osteoarthritis (OA) versus other chronically painful conditions; quantifying the impact of opioid use. METHODS: Analysis of employees with more than or equal to two STD or WC claims for OA or pre-specified chronically painful conditions (control) in the IBM MarketScan Research Databases (2014 to 2017). RESULTS: The OA cohort (n = 144,355) had an estimated +1.2 STD days, +$152 STD payments, and +$1410 healthcare payments relative to the control cohort (n = 392,639; P < 0.001). WC days/payments were similar. Differences were partially driven by an association between opioid use, increased STD days/payments, and healthcare payments observed in pooled cohorts (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: OA is associated with high STD days/payments and healthcare payments. Opioid use significantly contributes to these and this should be considered when choosing treatment.

A harm reduction model to assess the impact of new treatments for pain over standard of care among patients with osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects millions of adults in the United States and can result in substantial pain, functional impairment, and significant clinical and economic burden. To manage chronic pain associated with OA, treatment guidelines recommend a variety of pharmacologic treatments, including traditional oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2s), and opioids. While these drug treatments can be effective at pain management, they are also associated with significant clinical and economic burden. New treatments for chronic pain among patients with OA of the hip and/or knee have the potential to reduce the occurrence of such negative clinical outcomes, including cardiovascular events, renal events, and opioid use disorder (OUD), thereby reducing health care resource use (HRU) and medical costs. OBJECTIVE: To develop a harm reduction model (HRM) to assess potential reductions of negative clinical outcomes, HRU, and medical costs associated with the use of new treatments in place of oral NSAIDs, tramadol, and non-tramadol opioids among patients with OA of the hip and/or knee in the United States. METHODS: The HRM model integrated findings from the literature and inputs from a variety of sources, along with assumptions regarding potential ability of new treatments to replace existing treatments and market penetration into a unified framework to estimate outcomes and costs. The model outputs included estimated per-patient and population-level reductions in negative clinical outcomes associated with prescribing new treatments in place of oral NSAIDs or opioids along with number needed to treat (NNT) associated with new treatments. The model assumed that new treatments will primarily be used in place of non-tramadol opioids, but more modest adoption in place of oral NSAIDs and tramadol. RESULTS: Among patients with OA of the hip and/or knee who were prescribed oral NSAIDs, tramadol, or non-tramadol opioids for chronic use (≥ 90 days), the HRM estimated total cost savings of $3.8 billion, $5.1 billion, and $29.9 billion, respectively, from prescribing new treatments for OA pain over a 36-month period. The reduced economic burden was driven by significant reductions in the incidence of negative clinical outcomes. Estimates of the NNT to avoid a negative clinical event related to NSAID and opioid treatment initiation were low for most outcomes. Estimates of NNT associated with NSAID use ranged from 4 to 17 patients, depending on outcome, and estimates of NNT associated with opioid use was 35 non-tramadol and 134 tramadol patients for OUD and ranged from 6 to 21 patients for the other clinical outcomes, depending on treatment and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the HRM suggest that prescribing new treatments in place of oral NSAIDs and/or opioids for OA pain results in a potentially substantial reduction in patients experiencing negative clinical outcomes and reductions in all-cause HRU and costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company. Silverman was a paid consultant to Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with this study. Beck and Schepman are employees of Pfizer with stock and/or stock options. Robinson is an employee and minor stockholder of Eli Lilly and Company. Rice, White, and Fernan are employees of the Analysis Group, who were paid consultants to Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company for this study and development of the manuscript.

Moderate to Severe Osteoarthritis Pain and Its Impact on Patients in the United States: A National Survey.

PURPOSE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of chronic pain and a leading cause of disability in the US. The objective of this study was to examine the clinical and economic burden of OA by pain severity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used nationally representative survey data. Adults ≥18 years with self-reported physician-diagnosed OA and experiencing OA pain were included in the study. OA pain severity was measured using the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (SF-MPQ-VAS). Data were collected for demographics, clinical characteristics, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), productivity, OA treatment, adherence to pain medication, and healthcare resource utilization. Univariate analysis was performed to examine differences between respondents with moderate-to-severe OA pain vs those with mild OA pain. RESULTS: Higher proportions of respondents with moderate-to-severe OA pain (n=3798) compared with mild OA pain (n=2038) were female (69.4% vs 57.3%), <65 years of age (54.8% vs 43.4%), and not employed (70.6% vs 64.5%). Respondents with moderate-to-severe OA pain experienced OA pain daily (80.8% vs 48.8%), were obese (53.0% vs 40.5%), had more comorbidities (sleep disturbance, insomnia, depression, and anxiety), and reported significantly poorer health status and HRQoL, and greater productivity and activity impairment (all P<0.05). Moderate-to-severe OA pain respondents were prescribed significantly more pain medications than mild OA pain respondents (41.0% vs 17.0%) and had higher adherence (75.9% vs 64.1%) yet were less satisfied with their pain medications (all P<0.001). Outpatient and emergency room visits, and hospitalizations in the 6 months prior to the survey were significantly higher in moderate-to-severe OA pain respondents vs those with mild OA pain (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Patient and clinical burden was significantly greater in moderate-to-severe OA pain respondents vs mild OA pain respondents and may inform decision-making for appropriate resource allocation and effective management strategies that target specific subgroups.

Comparing the Fiscal Consequences of Controlled and Uncontrolled Osteoarthritis Pain Applying a UK Public Economic Perspective.

Background: Individuals experiencing osteoarthritis (OA) pain can pose significant costs for governments due to reduced work activity in these individuals and increasing reliance on public support benefits. In this analysis we capture the broader economic impact of OA pain by applying a government perspective, public economic framework to assess controlled and uncontrolled pain. Methods: We used a Markov model to compare labour market participation in people with uncontrolled OA hip or knee pain compared to a cohort with controlled OA pain. The likelihood of employment, long-term sickness, disability, and early retirement in those with controlled pain used publicly available UK data. The relative effect of uncontrolled OA pain on fiscal outcomes is drawn from peer reviewed publications reporting reduced work activity and reliance on public benefits for people with uncontrolled OA pain. Lost tax revenue was derived using UK tax rates and national insurance contributions applied to annual earnings. Social benefit rules were applied to calculate government financial support to individuals. Health-care costs were calculated based on estimates from an UK observational study. The base case analysis compared the projected lost tax revenue and transfer payments for a 50-year-old cohort with severe OA pain, retiring at age 65. Results: For a 50-year-old individual with moderate uncontrolled OA pain with 15-years remaining work expectancy, the model estimated a £62 383 reduction in employment earnings, a £24 307 reduction in tax contributions and a need for £16 034 in government benefits, compared to a person with controlled OA pain. In people with severe uncontrolled OA pain incremental foregone earnings were estimated to be £126 384, £44 925 were not paid through taxation and £25 829 were received in public benefits, compared to the controlled pain cohort. Health-care costs represented 13% and 12% of all OA-related fiscal cost in the moderate uncontrolled OA pain and severe uncontrolled OA pain comparison, respectively. Conclusions: For governments, maintaining an active workforce is paramount to maintaining economic growth and reducing spending on government programs. The approach described here can be used to augment cost-effectiveness models to inform a range of stakeholders of benefits attributed to controlled OA pain.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Celecoxib versus Ibuprofen and Naproxen in Patients with Osteoarthritis in United Arab Emirates Based on the PRECISION Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Data on osteoarthritis patients from the PRECISION trial were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib (100 mg twice daily) versus ibuprofen (600-800 mg three times daily) and naproxen (375-500 mg twice daily). The perspective was that of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) healthcare system. METHODS: Discrete-state Markov model with monthly cycles, 30-month horizon, and 3% discount rate was constructed to assess incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALYs) gained from reduced incidence of three safety domains examined in PRECISION: renal, serious gastrointestinal (GI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Costs for managing these toxicities were derived from Dubai Administrative Billing Claims (2018). Median monthly drug costs were derived from UAE Ministry of Health and Prevention's published prices ($26.98 celecoxib; $20.25 ibuprofen; $20.50 naproxen). Health utility and excess mortality associated with toxicities were sourced from the literature. The willingness-to-pay thresholds used were 1 and 3 GDP per capita ($40,000-$120,000). RESULTS: The total average cost per patient was $812.88 for celecoxib, $775.26 for ibuprofen, and $731.17 for naproxen while cost components attributed to toxicities were lowest with celecoxib ($360.26, $438.31, and $388.60, respectively). Patients on celecoxib had more QALYs (1.339), compared with ibuprofen (1.335) and naproxen (1.337), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,502/QALY gained for celecoxib versus ibuprofen and $39,779 for celecoxib versus naproxen. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated celecoxib to be 81% cost-effective versus ibuprofen and 50% versus naproxen at $40,000/QALY. The most influential model parameters were MACE relative safety and drug costs. CONCLUSION: From UAE third payer perspective, celecoxib is a long-term cost-effective treatment for osteoarthritis patients when compared with ibuprofen, and equally likely as naproxen to be cost-effective. With the expected increasing burden of chronic diseases in the Gulf region, study findings can inform decisions regarding the cost-effective pain management of osteoarthritis in UAE. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00346216.

Economic and humanistic burden associated with noncommunicable diseases among adults with depression and anxiety in the United States.

Aims: This study estimated the economic and humanistic burden associated with chronic non-communicable diseases (NCCDs) among adults with comorbid major depressive and/or any anxiety disorders (MDD and/or AAD).Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2010-2015). The analytic cohort included adults (≥18 years) with MDD only (C1), AAD only (C2), or both (C3). The presence of either of 6 NCCDs (cardiovascular diseases [CVD], pulmonary disorders [PD], pain, high cholesterol, diabetes, and obesity) were assessed. Study outcomes included healthcare costs, activity limitations, and quality of life. Multivariate regressions were conducted in each of the 3 cohorts to evaluate the association between the presence of NCCDs and outcomes.Results: The analytic sample included 9,160,465 patients: C1 (4,391,738), C2 (3,648,436), C3 (1,120,292). Pain (59%) was the most common condition, followed by CVD (55%), high cholesterol (50%), obesity (42%), PD (17%), and diabetes (14%). Mean annual healthcare costs were the greatest for C3 ($14,317), followed by C1 ($10,490) and C2 ($7,906). For C1, CVD was associated with the highest increment in annual costs ($3,966) followed by pain ($3,617). For C2, diabetes was associated with the highest incremental annual costs ($4,281) followed by PD ($2,997). For C3, cost trends were similar to those seen in C2. NCCDs resulted in a significant decrease in physical quality of life across all cohorts. Pain was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of self-reported physical, social, cognitive, and activity limitations compared to those without pain.Conclusions: 60% of patients with MDD and/or AAD had at least one additional NCCD, which significantly increased the economic and humanistic burden. These findings are important for payers and clinicians in making treatment decisions. These results underscore the need for development of multi-pronged interventions which aim to improve quality of life and reduce activity limitations among patients with mental health disorders and NCCDs.

Economic burden associated with inadequate antidepressant medication management among patients with depression and known cardiovascular diseases: insights from a United States-based retrospective claims database analysis.

Aims: The current study examined the association between insufficient major depressive disorder (MDD) care and healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted using the MarketScan Claims Database (2010-2015). The date of the first MI/stroke diagnosis was defined as the cardiovascular disease (CVD) index date and the first date of a subsequent MDD diagnosis was the index MDD date. Adequacy of MDD care was assessed during the 90 days following the index MDD date (profiling period) using 2 measures: dosage adequacy (average fluoxetine equivalent dose of ≥20 mg/day for nonelderly and ≥10 mg/day for elderly patients) and duration adequacy (measured as the proportion of days covered of 80% or higher for all MDD drugs). Study outcomes included all-cause and CVD-related HCRU and costs which were determined from the end of the profiling period until the end of study follow-up. Propensity-score adjusted generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to compare patients receiving adequate versus inadequate MDD care in terms of study outcomes.Results: Of 1,568 CVD patients who were treated for MDD, 937 (59.8%) were categorized as receiving inadequate MDD care. Results from the GLMs suggested that patients receiving inadequate MDD care had 14% more all-cause hospitalizations, 4% more all-cause outpatient visits, 17% more CVD-related outpatient visits, 13% more CVD-related emergency room (ER) visits, higher per patient per year CVD-related hospitalization costs ($21,485 vs. $17,756), higher all-cause outpatient costs ($2,820 vs. $2,055), and higher CVD-related outpatient costs ($520 vs. $434) compared to patients receiving adequate MDD care.Limitations: Clinical information such as depression severity and frailty, which are potential predictors of adverse CVD outcomes, could not be ascertained using administrative claims data.Conclusions: Among post-MI and post-stroke patients, inadequate MDD care was associated with a significantly higher economic burden.

Healthcare resource use and cost associated with timing of pharmacological treatment for major depressive disorder in the United States: a real-world study.

Background: Guidelines recommend selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) as first-line treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD) and emphasize the importance of early pharmacological treatment as key factors to treatment success.Objectives: To compare the MDD-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and cost among patients (1) with early vs late pharmacological treatment initiation and (2) achieving minimum therapeutic dose (MTD) early vs late.Methods: The MarketScan database (2010-2015) was used. Adults who were newly-treated with SSRI/SNRI within 12 months after the initial MDD diagnosis (index) were included. Patients who initiated SSRI/SNRI within 2 weeks of the index date were defined as early initiators; those who reached MTD within 4 weeks of index date were defined as early MTD achievers. MDD-related HCRU and costs per year after the index date were compared between early and late initiators and between early and late achievers using propensity score matching and generalized linear models.Results: Of the 55,539 patients, 60% were early initiators and 61% were early MTD achievers. The mean number of MDD-related outpatient visits per year were significantly higher for late initiator (6.7 vs 4.2, p < .001) and late MTD achievers (6.5 vs 4.5, p < .001) vs their early counterparts. Mean annual MDD-related outpatient, drug, and total cost were significantly higher for late initiators and MTD achievers vs the early groups.Conclusions: There is an opportunity to improve outcomes by treating MDD patients with SSRI/SNRI within 2 weeks and at or above the MTD within 4 weeks of diagnosis or less.