Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with post-stroke spasticity before and after spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxina.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data regarding the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA on healthcare resource utilization and costs for post-stroke spasticity are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in 12-month healthcare resource utilization and costs before and after post-stroke spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxinA. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis of IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases included adults with ≥ 1 onabotulinumtoxinA claim for post-stroke spasticity (1 January 2010 to 30 June 2018) and continuous enrolment for ≥ 12 months pre- and post-index (first onabotulinumtoxinA claim date). All-cause and spasticity-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared 12 months pre- and post-index (McNemar's χ2 test or paired t-test). A subgroup analysis assessed effect of stroke-to-index interval on costs. RESULTS: Among 735 patients, mean (standard deviation) stroke-date-to-index-date interval was 284.5 (198.8) days. Decreases were observed post-index for mean all-cause outpatient (62.9 vs 60.5; p ≤ 0.05) and emergency department visits (1.1 vs 0.8; p ≤ 0.0001), and hospital admissions (1.5 vs 0.4; p ≤ 0.0001). Increase in prescription fills (43.0 vs 53.7) was seen post-index. Post-index decreases in all-cause (-66%) and spasticity-related (-51%) costs were driven by reduced inpatient care costs. Findings were consistent regardless of stroke-date-to-index-date interval. CONCLUSION: Significant reductions in healthcare resource utilization and costs were observed after 1 year of post-stroke spasticity management including onabotulinumtoxinA. Long-term studies are needed to establish causality.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs for patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common complications following cardiac surgery. POAF is associated with increased hospitalization costs, but its long-term economic burden is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess 30-day and 1-year incremental healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with POAF in the United States (US). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims data from the IBM Watson MarketScan database. A cohort of US adults aged 55--90 years who underwent open-heart surgery between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 was used to compare patients who experienced POAF versus patients who did not (controls). The outcomes of interest were incremental HRU and costs, which were assessed during the index hospitalization and 30-day and 1-year postdischarge time periods. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 8,020 patients met the study inclusion criteria with 5,765 patients in the control cohort (mean age, 63.4 years) and 2,255 patients in the POAF cohort (mean age, 65.8 years). After adjustment, patients with POAF had an index hospitalization that was 1.9 days longer (99% CI, 1.3-2.4 days; p < 0.001) and cost $13,919 more (99% CI, $2,828-$25,011; p < 0.001) than for patients without POAF. POAF patients also had significantly higher HRU at 30 days and 1-year postdischarge with incremental costs of $4,649 (99% CI, $1,479-$7,819; p < 0.001) and $10,671 (99% CI, $2,407-$18,935; p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: POAF following open-heart surgery poses a significant economic burden up to 1 year postdischarge.

Real-world persistence and costs among patients with chronic migraine treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a common neurologic disorder that imposes substantial burden on payers, patients, and society. Low rates of persistence to oral migraine preventive medications have been previously documented; however, less is known about persistence and costs associated with innovative nonoral migraine preventive medications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world persistence and costs among adults with CM treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study analyzing the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases. The study sample included adults with CM initiating treatment with either onabotA or a CGRP mAb on or after January 1, 2018. Persistence and costs over 12 months after treatment initiation were evaluated using chi-square and Student's t-tests. Persistence to onabotA was compared with CGRP mAbs as a weighted average of the class and by individual CGRP mAbs. Mean pharmacy (acute and preventive), medical (inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient), and total costs are reported. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to generate adjusted estimates of persistence and costs after controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, region, insurance type, number of baseline comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and number of previously used oral migraine preventive medications). RESULTS: Of 66,303 individuals with onabotA or CGRP mAb claims, 2,697 with CM met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the total population, individuals were primarily female (85.5%), lived in the South (48.5%), and had a mean (SD) age of 44 (12) years, which was consistent across the onabotA and CGRP mAb cohorts. Common comorbid conditions included anxiety (23.9%), depression (18.2%), hypertension (16.5%), and sleep disorders (16.9%). After adjusting for potential confounding variables, persistence to onabotA during the 12-month follow-up period was 40.7% vs 27.8% for CGRP mAbs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.683; 95% CI = 0.604-0.768; P < 0.0001). Persistence to erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab was 25.5% (OR = 0.627; 95% CI = 0.541-0.722; P < 0.0001), 30.3% (OR = 0.746; 95% CI = 0.598-0.912; P = 0.0033), and 33.7% (OR = 0.828; 95% CI = 0.667-1.006; P = 0.058). All-cause ($18,292 vs $18,275; P = 0.9739) and migraine-related ($8,990 vs $9,341; P = 0.1374) costs were comparable between the onabotA and CGRP mAb groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CM receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs, individuals initiating onabotA treatment had higher persistence compared with those receiving CGRP mAbs. Total all-cause and migraine-related costs over 12 months were comparable between those receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie), they contributed to the design and interpretation of data and the writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Dennis Stancavish, MS, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, and was funded by AbbVie. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The authors received no honorarium/fee or other form of financial support related to the development of this article. Dr Schwedt serves on the Board of Directors for the American Headache Society and the American Migraine Foundation. Within the prior 12 months he has received research support from Amgen, Henry Jackson Foundation, Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, SPARK Neuro, and US Department of Defense. Within the past 12 months, he has received personal compensation for serving as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Allergan, Axsome, BioDelivery Science, Biohaven, Collegium, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Linpharma, Lundbeck, and Satsuma. He holds stock options in Aural Analytics and Nocira. He has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr Lee and Ms Shah are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Gillard was an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Knievel has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Biohaven; conducted research for AbbVie, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; and is on speaker programs for AbbVie and Amgen. Dr McVige has served as a speaker and/or received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie Inc.), Alder, Amgen/Novartis, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Teva. Ms Wang and Ms Wu are employees of Genesis Research, which provides consulting services to AbbVie. Dr Blumenfeld, within the past 12 months, has served on advisory boards for Allergan, AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Amgen, Axsome, BDSI, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, Lilly, Novartis, Revance, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano; as a speaker for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, BDSI, Biohaven, Lundbeck, Lilly, and Teva; as a consultant for Allergan, AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva, and Theranica; and as a contributing author for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Novartis, Lilly, and Teva. He has received grant support from AbbVie and Amgen. AbbVie is committed to responsible data sharing regarding the clinical trials we sponsor. This includes access to anonymized, individual, and trial-level data (analysis data sets), as well as other information (eg, protocols, clinical study reports, or analysis plans), as long as the trials are not part of an ongoing or planned regulatory submission. This includes requests for clinical trial data for unlicensed products and indications. These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent scientific research, and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal and Statistical Analysis Plan and execution of a Data Sharing Agreement. Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the United States and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process, or to submit a request, visit the following link: https://www.abbvieclinicaltrials.com/hcp/data-sharing/.

Place of care and costs associated with acute episodes and remission in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia imposes significant economic burden on patients, families, caregivers, and society. To our knowledge, place of care and associated costs of acute schizophrenia episodes have not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To describe the care settings and costs associated with likely acute episodes and untreated remission periods among patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Adults with schizophrenia were identified using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (2009-2018); claims for capitated benefits plans were excluded. Acute episode index date was defined as at least 1 inpatient schizophrenia claim or outpatient schizophrenia claim (frequency of claim dependent on visit type, such as hospitalization, emergency department, private practice, clinic, urgent care, or laboratory). Mental health-related medical costs (health plan+patient) associated with acute episodes were collected over a 2-month follow-up period and stratified by setting (inpatient vs outpatient); acute episode data were reported in subgroups of patients without or with prior clozapine use, as an indication of disease severity. Remission index date was defined as at least 1 outpatient claim with a schizophrenia diagnosis with no acute episode and no oral or injectable antipsychotic therapy. Remission costs were assessed over a 3-month period. All data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 14,824 patients with schizophrenia met criteria for an acute episode (12,896 [87.0%] without prior clozapine use; 1,427 [9.6%] with prior clozapine use). Most acute episodes were treated in an outpatient setting (all patients, 76.3%; without prior clozapine use, 74.5%; with prior clozapine use, 87.1%). When treated inpatient, mean (SD) episode medical costs were $17,045 ($28,101) for all patients, $16,060 ($22,786) for those without prior clozapine use, and $22,827 ($55,860) for those with prior clozapine use. When treated outpatient, mean (SD) medical costs for acute episodes were $2,478 ($6,961) for all patients, $2,609 ($7,068) for those without prior clozapine use, and $1,770 ($6,560) for those with prior clozapine use. For all patients with acute episodes, regardless of clozapine use, patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs were approximately 30% of total medical costs. For an untreated period of remission, 6,950 patients with schizophrenia met criteria. Total medical costs were $2,399 for these patients over a 3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of acute schizophrenia episodes were treated in the outpatient setting. For episodes that required inpatient care, inpatient episodes were approximately 7 times more costly than episodes treated in outpatient-only settings. For acute episodes and remission periods, health plans covered most costs; however, there were additional patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs. DISCLOSURES: All authors met the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Neither honoraria nor payments were made for authorship. Dr McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Mr Doan, Dr Amari, and Mr Mercer are employees of Genesis Research, which was funded to perform the study. Ms Higa, Dr Gillard, and Dr Harrington were employees of AbbVie at the time of the study and may hold stock. This study was sponsored by AbbVie.

Total healthcare cost savings through improved bipolar I disorder identification using the Rapid Mood Screener in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Misdiagnosis of bipolar I disorder (BP-I) as major depressive disorder (MDD) leads to increased healthcare resource utilization and costs. The cost-effectiveness of the Rapid Mood Screener (RMS), a tool to identify BP-I in patients with depressive symptoms, was assessed in patients diagnosed with MDD presenting with depressive episodes. METHODS: A decision-tree model of a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients in a US health plan was used to estimate the number of correct diagnoses and overall total, direct healthcare costs over a 3-year timeframe for RMS-screened versus unscreened patients. Model inputs included the prevalence of BP-I in patients diagnosed with MDD, RMS sensitivity/specificity, and the cost of misdiagnosing BP-I as MDD. RESULTS: Screening with the RMS resulted in 171, 159, and 143 additional correct BP-I or MDD diagnoses at Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Total healthcare plan cost savings were $1279 per patient in Year 1. Cumulative cost savings per patient for RMS screening versus no RMS screening were $2307 over 2 years and $3011 over 3 years. Scenario analyses showed that the RMS would remain cost-saving assuming a lower prevalence of BP-I (20% or 10%) versus the base case (24.3%). CONCLUSION: The RMS is a cost-effective tool to identify BP-I in patients who would otherwise be misdiagnosed with MDD. Screening with the RMS resulted in cost-savings over 3 years, with model results remaining robust even with lower prevalence of BP-I and reduced RMS sensitivity assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments from a US commercial and payer perspective.

Aim: The cost-effectiveness of treatment options (anticholinergics, ß3-adrenoceptor agonists, onabotulinumtoxinA, sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial stimulation [the latter two including new rechargeable neurostimulators]) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB) were compared with best supportive care (BSC) using a previously published Markov model. Materials & methods: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a 15-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were performed using 2- and 5-year horizons. Discontinuation rates, resource utilization, and costs were derived from published sources. Results: Using Medicare and commercial costs over a 15-year time period, onabotulinumtoxinA 100U had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) gained of $39,591/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $42,255/QALY, respectively, versus BSC, which were the lowest ICERs of all assessed treatments. The sensitivity analyses at 2- and 5-year horizons also showed onabotulinumtoxinA to be the most cost-effective of all assessed treatments versus BSC. Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA 100U is currently the most cost-effective treatment for OAB.

Annual costs among patients with major depressive disorder and the impact of key clinical events.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) is substantial and increasing; however, the impact of key clinical events (eg, hospitalization, suicide attempt/ideation, and treatment changes) on health care resource use and costs are less established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the health care utilization and costs among patients with MDD, particularly for those with key clinical events. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, administrative health care claims from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database were used to identify adults with a new diagnosis of MDD (January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017). Patients with 12 months or more of continuous health care coverage before and after the initial medical claim with an MDD diagnosis (index date) and 1 or more pharmacy claims for an antidepressant within 60 days of any qualifying medical claim were included. The effect of post-index date key clinical events (eg, treatment changes, moderate to severe MDD, MDD-related emergency department [ED] visits, MDD-related hospitalizations, suicide attempt/ideation, severe mental health disorder, use of brain stimulation therapies) on all-cause total costs was assessed. Actual allcause costs were summarized descriptively and reported per patient per year (PPPY). Multivariable analyses compared differences in all-cause costs during follow-up, depending on whether patients experienced a key clinical event. RESULTS: A total of 455,082 patients met eligibility criteria. The average age was 41 years and 64% of patients were female. Mean (SD) all-cause PPPY costs during the follow-up period were $10,074 ($25,694). The most common key clinical events were treatment changes, moderate to severe MDD diagnosis, and MDD-related ED visits. The majority of patients (90.1%) experienced at least 1 treatment change, which was most commonly treatment discontinuation. Generally, mean costs for up to 90 days following an event were higher than those preceding the event. In multivariable analyses, patients with any key clinical events had 51% higher PPPY allcause health care costs compared with those who did not have any key clinical events. Compared with patients without key clinical events, follow-up costs were more than 2 times higher among patients with severe mental health disorder, MDD-related hospitalization, and suicide attempt/ideation. The most impactful key clinical event was treatment with electroconvulsive therapy, vagal nerve stimulation, or transcranial magnetic stimulation, in which patients incurred 4.3 times higher follow-up costs than those who did not receive one of these treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Key clinical events exacerbate health care resource use and costs among patients with MDD. Effective therapeutic regimens initiated optimally in the course of treatment may mitigate costly clinical events associated with MDD. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan plc (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie). The sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. All authors met the ICMJE authorship criteria. Neither honoraria nor payments were made for authorship. Dr Cutler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Akili Interactive, Alfasigma, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Avanir, BioXcel Therapeutics, BlackThorn Therapeutics, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Janssen, Karuna Therapeutics, Lundbeck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Noven, Otsuka, Sage Therapeutics, Sunovion, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Teva and Tris Pharma; has received speaker/promotional honoraria from AbbVie, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alfasigma, Alkermes, Allergan, Avanir, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Janssen, Lundbeck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Noven, Otsuka, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, and Tris Pharma; and has received research grants from Aevi Genomics, Akili Interactive, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Ironshore, KemPharm, Lilly, Lundbeck, Neos Therapeutics, Novartis, Otsuka, Purdue Canada, Sunovion, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and Tris Pharma. Drs Keyloun and Gillard are AbbVie employees and may hold stock. Dr Higa was an employee of AbbVie at the time of the study and may hold stock. Ms Park is an employee of Merative, formerly IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie) to conduct this analysis. Dr Bonafede was an employee of IBM Watson Health, now Merative, which received funding from Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie) to conduct this analysis. Dr Jain has served as a consultant to Addrenex, Allergan (now AbbVie), Avanir, Janssen, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocrine Biosciences, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva; has been a paid speaker for Addrenex, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Rhodes, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Takeda, and Tris Pharmaceuticals; has received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie), AstraZeneca, Lilly, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Shire, and Takeda; and has served on the advisory boards for Addrenex, Alkermes, Avanir, Forum, Janssen, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocrine Biosciences, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Shionogi, Shire, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

Place of care and costs associated with acute episodes and remission in bipolar I disorder.

AIMS: To our knowledge, literature describing the place of care and associated costs during acute bipolar I disorder (BP-I) episodes is limited. We conducted a claims-based retrospective study to address this gap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with BP-I were identified via IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. The acute episode index date was defined by ≥1 inpatient BP-I claim(s) or ≥1 outpatient or ≥3 outpatient BP-I claims (depending on visit type) in a 2-week (manic/mixed) or 4-week (depressive) period. Likely acute episodes were defined as 3- and 6-week periods for manic/mixed and depressive episodes, respectively; total mental health-related medical costs (health plan + patient) were collected during these intervals and stratified by setting (inpatient versus outpatient). Initial and subsequent episodes were captured; data were reported in subgroups without and with clozapine use, a proxy for disease severity. The remission index date was the earliest outpatient claim with a bipolar remission diagnosis with no acute episode or treatment. Remission costs were collected over a 3-month period. All results were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 41,516 patients with 130,221 acute manic/mixed episodes and 47,763 patients with 149,207 acute depressive episodes met the study criteria. Over 84% of acute episodes were treated in outpatient settings. Mental health-related medical costs for manic/mixed episodes were $15,444 for inpatient and $1,577 for outpatient settings; inpatient and outpatient costs for depressive episodes were $17,376 and $2,154, respectively. Health plans covered approximately 78% of medical costs for both episode types with and without prior clozapine use. A total of 8,143 patients met remission criteria; the total 3-month outpatient costs were $1,225. CONCLUSIONS: Most BP-I acute manic/mixed or depressive episodes were treated in the outpatient setting. Episodes with inpatient care were 8-10 times more costly than outpatient-only episodes. Health plans covered most medical costs, but additional patient-incurred out-of-pocket costs remained.

The real-world health resource use and costs of misdiagnosing bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosis of bipolar I disorder (BP-I) as major depressive disorder (MDD) is common. This study evaluated healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among BP-I patients who were initially misdiagnosed with MDD (misdiagnosed BP-I cohort) versus patients diagnosed with BP-I without a known prior MDD diagnosis (BP-I only cohort). METHODS: Data from IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases were used. The index date was the first MDD diagnosis for misdiagnosed patients or first BP-I diagnosis for BP-I only patients. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. All-cause and mental health (MH)-related HRU and costs were compared between weighted cohorts using rate ratios (RRs) and mean cost differences, respectively. Outcomes were reported per patient-year (PPY). Confidence intervals and P-values were calculated using non-parametric bootstrap procedures. RESULTS: Overall, 14,729 misdiagnosed BP-I and 16,072 BP-I only patients met criteria. Baseline characteristics were balanced across weighted cohorts. Misdiagnosed BP-I patients had significantly higher rates of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and outpatient visits than BP-I only patients during follow-up (all-cause RRs: 1.94, 1.33, and 1.38, respectively, all P < .001; MH-related RRs: 2.19, 1.77, and 1.77, respectively, all P < .001). Similarly, misdiagnosed BP-I patients incurred significantly higher total healthcare costs PPY over follow-up (all-cause: $21,202 vs $14,661, cost difference = $6541; MH-related: $12,901 vs $6749, cost difference = $6152; both P < .001). Cost differences were even higher during the first year (all-cause = $7146; MH-related = $6619; both P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Claims database (e.g., coding inaccuracies); generalizability to uninsured patients. CONCLUSIONS: The prompt and correct diagnosis of BP-I may significantly reduce HRU and costs.

Treatment Patterns During Major Depressive Episodes Among Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A Retrospective Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder, a highly prevalent mental health condition, can be challenging to treat. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize treatment patterns within and across multiple major depressive episodes in patients receiving treatment for major depressive disorder. METHODS: Adults with newly diagnosed major depressive disorder and one or more major depressive episodes were identified using the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial database. Eligible patients had 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after diagnosis. Lines of therapy were periods of continuous treatment with one or more antidepressant claims. Antidepressant, atypical antipsychotic, or mood stabilizer regimens as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy were characterized by lines of therapy and major depressive episodes. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 455,082 patients were included in the analysis. The majority of treatment regimens were monotherapy, which decreased with subsequent lines of therapy, while adjunctive treatments increased with subsequent lines of therapy. There were 1860 unique adjunctive regimens identified. Of the 40,315 patients (9%) who received adjunctive therapy, 8024 (20%; 2% of all patients) received atypical antipsychotic-adjunctive regimens. Only 19% of patients treated with atypical antipsychotic-adjunctive therapy discontinued treatment versus 42% of monotherapy-treated patients. On average, patients who received an adjunctive atypical antipsychotic received it as their third line of therapy and approximately 400 days after the initial antidepressant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, many patients continued monotherapy major depressive disorder regimens and experienced multiple treatment changes. Few patients were treated with adjunctive therapy. These results suggest underutilization of potentially effective treatments, which represents an opportunity to optimize the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder.

Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Bipolar Disorder in the United States: A Retrospective Claims Database Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder is a chronic and complex disorder that can be difficult to treat. The objective of this retrospective study was to describe treatment patterns among patients with bipolar disorder. METHODS: Adults newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder from 2016 to 2018 were identified using the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial claims database. Patients were enrolled for at least 12 months prior to and 6 months after initial diagnosis. Lines of therapy (LOTs) were continuous treatment periods based on filled prescriptions; medications, such as antidepressants, mood stabilizers, atypical antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, stimulants, and off-label prescriptions, were recorded. All data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 40,345 patients met criteria. The most common initial episode types were bipolar II (38.1%), and bipolar I depression (29.8%), mania (12.8%), and mixed features (12.0%). Among all episode types, approximately 90% of patients received treatment (LOT1) and approximately 80% of these patients received at least one additional LOT. Across all episode types, the most common medication classes in LOT1 (n = 36,587) were mood stabilizers (43.8%), antidepressants (42.3%; 12.9% as monotherapy), atypical antipsychotics (31.7%), and benzodiazepines (20.7%); with subsequent LOTs, antidepressant (51.4-53.8%) and benzodiazepine (26.9-27.4%) usage increased. Also in LOT1, there were 2067 different regimens. Treatment patterns were generally similar across episode type. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressants and benzodiazepines were frequently prescribed to treat bipolar disorder despite guidelines recommending against use as frontline therapy. These results highlight the considerable heterogeneity in care and suggest that many clinicians treating bipolar disorder are not using evidence-based prescribing practices.

Pathway with single-dose long-acting intravenous antibiotic reduces emergency department hospitalizations of patients with skin infections.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) patients with serious skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are often hospitalized to receive intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Appropriate patients may avoid admission following a single-dose, long-acting IV antibiotic. METHODS: We conducted a preintervention versus postintervention design trial at 11 U.S. EDs comparing hospitalization rates under usual care to those using a clinical pathway that included a single IV dalbavancin dose. We enrolled adults with cellulitis, abscess, or wound infection with an infected area of ≥75 cm2 without other indications for hospitalization. Clinical pathway participants discharged from the ED received a 24-hour follow-up telephone call and had a 48- to 72-hour in-person visit. We hypothesized that, compared to usual care, the clinical pathway would result in a significant reduction in the initial hospitalization rate. RESULTS: Of 156 and 153 participants in usual care and clinical pathway periods, median infection areas were 255.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 150.0 to 500.0) cm2 and 289.0 (IQR = 161.3 to 555.0) cm2 , respectively. During their initial care, 60 (38.5%) usual care participants were hospitalized and 27 (17.6%) pathway participants were hospitalized (difference = 20.8 percentage points [PP], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.4 to 31.2 PP). Over 44 days, 70 (44.9%) usual care and 44 (28.8%) pathway participants were hospitalized (difference = 16.1 PP, 95% CI = 4.9 to 27.4 PP). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ED SSTI clinical pathway for patient selection and follow-up that included use of a single-dose, long-acting IV antibiotic was associated with a significant reduction in hospitalization rate for stable patients with moderately severe infections. Registration: NCT02961764.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants in major depressive disorder (MDD) are common and associated with poor clinical and functional outcomes and increased health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. However, contemporary real-world evidence on the economic effect of antidepressant nonadherence and nonpersistence is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of nonadherence and nonpersistence to antidepressants on HCRU and costs in adult patients with MDD enrolled in U.S. commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance plans. METHODS: This was a retrospective new-user cohort study using administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. We identified adult patients with MDD aged ≥ 18 years who initiated antidepressant therapy for a new MDD episode between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Twelve-month total all-cause HCRU and costs (2019 U.S. dollars) were characterized for patients who were adherent/nonadherent and persistent/nonpersistent to antidepressants at 6 months. Adherence was defined as having proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 80%, and persistence was defined as having continuous antidepressant therapy without a ≥ 30-day gap. Multivariable negative binomial regression and 2-part models adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for HCRU and incremental costs of nonadherence and nonpersistence, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 224,645 patients with MDD (commercial: n = 209,422; Medicare supplemental: n = 15,223) met all study inclusion criteria. Approximately half of patients were nonadherent (commercial: 48%; Medicare supplemental: 50%) or nonpersistent (commercial: 49%; Medicare supplemental: 52%) to antidepressants at 6 months. After controlling for baseline characteristics, nonadherent patients experienced significantly more inpatient hospitalizations (commercial, adjusted IRR [95% CI]: 1.34 [1.29 to 1.39]; Medicare supplemental: 1.19 [1.12 to 1.28]) and emergency room (ER) visits (commercial, adjusted IRR [95% CI]: 1.43 [1.40 to 1.45]; Medicare supplemental: 1.28 [1.21 to 1.36]) compared with adherent patients. Similar results were observed in nonpersistent patients. Adjusted mean differences revealed that nonadherent and nonpersistent patients accumulated significantly higher medical costs (commercial: $568 [95% CI: $354 to $764] and $491 [$284 to $703]; Medicare supplemental: $1,621 [$314 to $2,774] and $1,764 [$451 to $2,925]), inpatient costs (commercial: $650 [$490 to $801] and $564 [$417 to $716]; Medicare supplemental: $1,546 [$705 to $2,308] and $1,567 [$778 to $2,331]), and ER costs (commercial: $130 [$115 to $143] and $129 [$115 to $142]; Medicare supplemental: $82 [$23 to $150] and $80 [$18 to $150]), and incurred significantly lower pharmacy costs (commercial: -$561 [-$601 to -$521] and -$576 [-$616 to -$540]; Medicare supplemental: -$510 [-$747 to -$227] and -$596 [-$830 to -$325]) compared with adherent and persistent patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found more hospitalizations and ER use and higher total medical costs among patients who were nonadherent and nonpersistent to antidepressants at 6 months. Strategies that promote better adherence and persistence may lower HCRU and medical costs in patients with MDD. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan, which was involved in the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and decision to present these results. Ta was supported by a training grant provided to the University of Washington by Allergan at the time this study was conducted. Tung and Gillard are employees of Allergan. Oliveri is an employee of Genesis Research. Sullivan and Devine have no financial disclosures. This study was presented as a poster at AMCP 2020 (Virtual Meeting), April 21-24, 2020.

The Rapid Mood Screener (RMS): a novel and pragmatic screener for bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Depressive episodes and symptoms of bipolar I disorder are commonly misdiagnosed as major depressive disorder (MDD) in primary care. The novel and pragmatic Rapid Mood Screener (RMS) was developed to screen for manic symptoms and bipolar I disorder features (e.g. age of depression onset) to address this unmet clinical need. METHODS: A targeted literature search was conducted to select concepts thought to differentiate bipolar I from MDD and screener tool items were drafted. Items were tested and refined in cognitive debriefing interviews with individuals with self-reported bipolar I or MDD (n = 12). An observational study was conducted to evaluate predictive validity. Participants with clinical interview-confirmed bipolar I or MDD diagnoses (n = 139) completed a draft 10-item screening tool and other questionnaires. Data were analyzed to identify the smallest possible subset of items with optimized sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Adults with confirmed bipolar I (n = 67) or MDD (n = 72) participated in the observational study. Ten draft screening tool items were reduced to 6 final RMS items based on the item-level analysis. When 4 or more items of the RMS were endorsed ("yes"), sensitivity was 0.88 and specificity was 0.80; positive and negative predictive values were 0.80 and 0.88, respectively. These properties were an improvement over the Mood Disorder Questionnaire in the same analysis sample while using 60% fewer items. CONCLUSION: The pragmatic 6-item RMS differentiates bipolar I disorder from MDD in patients with depressive symptoms, providing real-world guidance to primary care practitioners on whether a more comprehensive assessment for bipolar I disorder is warranted.

Contemporary treatment utilization among women diagnosed with symptomatic uterine fibroids in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated treatment patterns among women diagnosed with symptomatic uterine fibroids (UF) in the United States. Data were retrospectively extracted from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicaid Multi-State databases. METHODS: Women aged 18-64 years with ≥1 medical claim with a UF diagnosis (primary position, or secondary position plus ≥1 associated symptom) from January 2010 to June 2015 (Commercial) and January 2009 to December 2014 (Medicaid) were eligible; the first UF claim during these time periods was designated the index date. Data collected 12 months pre- and 12 and 60 months post-diagnosis included clinical/demographic characteristics, pharmacologic/surgical treatments, and surgical complications. Prevalence (2015) and cumulative incidence (Commercial, 2010-2015; Medicaid, 2009-2015) of symptomatic UF were estimated. RESULTS: 225,737 (Commercial) and 19,062 (Medicaid) women had a minimum of 12 months post-index continuous enrollment and were eligible for study. Symptomatic UF prevalence and cumulative incidence were: 0.57, 1.23% (Commercial) and 0.46, 0.64% (Medicaid). Initial treatments within 12 months post-diagnosis were surgical (Commercial, 36.7%; Medicaid, 28.7%), pharmacologic (31.7%; 53.0%), or none (31.6%; 18.3%). Pharmacologic treatments were most commonly non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral contraceptives; hysterectomy was the most common surgical treatment. Of procedures of abdominal hysterectomy, abdominal myomectomy, uterine artery embolization, and ablation in the first 12 months post-index, 14.9% (Commercial) and 24.9% (Medicaid) resulted in a treatment-associated complication. Abdominal hysterectomy had the highest complication rates (Commercial, 18.5%; Medicaid, 31.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Off-label use of pharmacologic therapies and hysterectomy for treatment of symptomatic UF suggests a need for indicated non-invasive treatments for symptomatic UF.

Direct Costs Incurred Among Women Undergoing Surgical Procedures to Treat Uterine Fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids (UF) affect up to 70%-80% of women by 50 years of age and represent a substantial economic burden on patients and society. Despite the high costs associated with UF, recent studies on the costs of UF-related surgical treatments remain limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe the health care resource utilization (HCRU) and all-cause costs among women diagnosed with UF who underwent UF-related surgery. METHODS: Data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and Medicaid Multi-State database were independently, retrospectively analyzed from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2015. Women aged 18-64 years with ≥ 1 UF claim from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, a claim for a UF-related surgery (hysterectomy, myomectomy, uterine artery embolization [UAE], or ablation) from January 1, 2010, to November 30, 2015, and continuous enrollment for ≥ 1 year presurgery and ≥ 30 days postsurgery qualified for study inclusion. A 1-year period before the date of the first UF-related surgical claim after the first UF diagnosis was used to report baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Surgery characteristics were reported. All-cause HCRU and costs (adjusted to 2017 U.S. dollars) were described by the 14 days pre-, peri-, and 30 days postoperative periods, and independently by the inpatient or outpatient setting. RESULTS: Overall, 113,091 patients were included in this study: commercial database, n = 103,814; Medicaid database, n = 9,277. Median time from the initial UF diagnosis to first UF-related surgical procedure was 33 days for the commercial population and 47 days for the Medicaid population. Hysterectomy was the most common UF-related surgery received after UF diagnosis (commercial, 68% [n = 70,235]; Medicaid, 75% [n = 6,928]). In both populations, 97% of patients had ≥ 1 outpatient visit from 14 days presurgery to 30 days postsurgery (commercial, n = 100,402; Medicaid, n = 9,023), and the majority of all UF-related surgeries occurred in the outpatient setting (commercial, 64% [n = 66,228]; Medicaid, 66% [n = 6,090]). Mean total all-cause costs for patients with UF who underwent any UF-related surgery were $15,813 (SD $13,804) in the commercial population (n = 95,433) and $11,493 (SD $26,724) in the Medicaid population (n = 4,785). Mean total all-cause costs for UF-related surgeries for the commercial/Medicaid populations were $17,450 (SD $13,483)/$12,273 (SD $19,637) for hysterectomy, $14,216 (SD $16,382)/$11,764 (SD $15,478) for myomectomy, $17,163 (SD $13,527)/$12,543 (SD $23,777) for UAE, $8,757 (SD $9,369)/$7,622 (SD $50,750) for ablation, and $12,281 (SD $10,080)/$5,989 (SD $5,617) for myomectomy and ablation. Mean total all-cause costs for any UF-related surgery performed in the outpatient setting in the commercial and Medicaid populations were $14,396 (SD $11,466) and $6,720 (SD $10,374), respectively, whereas costs in the inpatient setting were $18,345 (SD $16,910) and $21,805 (SD $43,244), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis indicated that surgical treatment options for UF continue to represent a substantial financial burden. This underscores the need for alternative, cost-effective treatments for the management of UF. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan, Dublin, Ireland. Allergan played a role in the conduct, analysis, interpretation, writing of the report, and decision to publish this study. Harrington and Ye are employees of Allergan. Stafkey-Mailey, Fuldeore, and Yue are employees of Xcenda. Ta was a contractor at Allergan at the time the study was conducted and is currently supported by a training grant from Allergan. Bonine, Shih, and Gillard are employees of Allergan and have stock, stock options, and/or restricted stock units as employees of Allergan. Banks has no disclosures to report. This study was presented as a poster at Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX.

Dalbavancin Reduces Hospital Stay and Improves Productivity for Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: The ENHANCE Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Admissions for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are often prolonged because of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Use of a long-acting IV antibiotic may reduce length of stay (LOS) on a hospitalist service. The ENHANCE ABSSSI trial sought to determine the impact on LOS and work productivity in patients treated with a long-acting IV antibiotic, dalbavancin, vs. usual care at an urban tertiary-care center. METHODS: A single-center, pre- vs. post-period pragmatic trial at Weill-Cornell Medical Center assessed usual care for consecutively enrolled admitted ABSSSI patients during an observational period (pre-period). Identification and treatment of eligible admitted ABSSSI patients with dalbavancin were implemented in the post-period. Those with life-threatening infections, requiring multiple antibiotics/intensive care, or with unstable comorbidities were excluded. Outcomes were assessed over a 44-day follow-up period. RESULTS: Of 48 and 43 patients enrolled, respectively, in the pre- and post-periods, mean infection-related LOS was reduced in the post-period (3.2 days vs. 4.8 days; P = 0.003). Similar results were found in an adjusted LOS analysis. Work productivity and activity impairment outcomes significantly improved in the post-period (P ≤ 0.01). Complete response rates were similar: 50% (pre-period) and 57% (post-period). Among AEs identified, 17% (n = 7) were found to have possible causal relation to dalbavancin in the post-period. Few AEs were serious (n = 3; 7% post-period versus n = 1; 2% pre-period). CONCLUSION: After implementing the ENHANCE ABSSSI pathway, LOS was significantly reduced by almost 2 days, with potential improvements in work productivity and ability to complete daily activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03233438. FUNDING: Allergan plc.

Psychometric validation of the 1-month recall Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire (UFS-QOL).

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the 1-month recall Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire (UFS-QOL), including the Revised Activities subscale. METHODS: VENUS I and II were phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of ulipristal acetate in women with uterine fibroids (UF) and abnormal uterine bleeding. Women completed the 1-month recall UFS-QOL at baseline and after 12 weeks' treatment. Uterine bleeding was assessed via a daily diary (both studies); the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I) was completed in VENUS II. Psychometric analyses examined internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the UFS-QOL; confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) compared model fit of the original and Revised Activities subscales. Analyses were conducted separately for VENUS I and II. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients in VENUS I and 429 in VENUS II were included. Changes in mean Symptom Severity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scale scores indicated symptom burden reductions and HRQoL improvements. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were high at baseline and after 12 weeks' treatment (all ≥0.76, meeting the >0.70 threshold), demonstrating strong internal consistency reliability. Correlations between UFS-QOL scores and bleeding diary responses (range: -0.35 to -0.63), and UFS-QOL scores and PGI-I responses (range: -0.48 to -0.70), ranged from moderate to strong after 12 weeks' treatment (all p < 0.0001). Patients with absence of bleeding or controlled bleeding after 12 weeks' treatment scored significantly better (p < 0.001) on each UFS-QOL scale than patients not achieving those end points, supporting construct validity. CFA confirmed model fit for the Revised Activities subscale. CONCLUSIONS: The 1-month recall UFS-QOL, including the Revised Activities subscale, is a valid, reliable measure to assess UF symptoms and their impact on HRQoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02147197 . Registered May 26, 2014; retrospectively registered. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02147158 . Registered May 26, 2014; retrospectively registered.

Development of a bedside tool to predict the probability of drug-resistant pathogens among hospitalized adult patients with gram-negative infections.

BACKGROUND: We developed a clinical bedside tool to simultaneously estimate the probabilities of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (3GC-R), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDRP) among hospitalized adult patients with Gram-negative infections. METHODS: Data were obtained from a retrospective observational study of the Premier Hospital that included hospitalized adult patients with a complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP), or bloodstream infection (BSI) due to Gram-negative bacteria between 2011 and 2015. Risk factors for 3GC-R, CRE, and MDRP were ascertained by multivariate logistic regression, and separate models were developed for patients with community-acquired versus hospital-acquired infections for each resistance phenotype (N = 6). Models were converted to a singular user-friendly interface to estimate the probabilities of a patient having an infection due to 3GC-R, CRE, or MDRP when ≥ 1 risk factor was present. RESULTS: Overall, 124,068 patients contributed to the dataset. Percentages of patients admitted for cUTI, cIAI, HAP/VAP, and BSI were 61.6, 4.6, 16.5, and 26.4%, respectively (some patients contributed > 1 infection type). Resistant infection rates were 1.90% for CRE, 12.09% for 3GC-R, and 3.91% for MDRP. A greater percentage of the resistant infections were community-acquired relative to hospital-acquired (CRE, 1.30% vs 0.62% of 1.90%; 3GC-R, 9.27% vs 3.42% of 12.09%; MDRP, 2.39% vs 1.59% of 3.91%). The most important predictors of having an 3GC-R, CRE or MDRP infection were prior number of antibiotics; infection site; infection during the previous 3 months; and hospital prevalence of 3GC-R, CRE, or MDRP. To enable application of the six predictive multivariate logistic regression models to real-world clinical practice, we developed a user-friendly interface that estimates the risk of 3GC-R, CRE, and MDRP simultaneously in a given patient with a Gram-negative infection based on their risk (Additional file 1). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a clinical prediction tool to estimate the probabilities of 3GC-R, CRE, and MDRP among hospitalized adult patients with confirmed community- and hospital-acquired Gram-negative infections. Our predictive model has been implemented as a user-friendly bedside tool for use by clinicians/healthcare professionals to predict the probability of resistant infections in individual patients, to guide early appropriate therapy.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among women diagnosed with uterine fibroids compared to women without uterine fibroids.

Objective: To perform a retrospective, matched-cohort, longitudinal evaluation of annual pre- and post-diagnosis costs incurred among women with uterine fibroids (UF) (cases) compared to controls without UF. Methods: Data were derived from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicaid Multi-State databases. Women aged 18-64 years with ≥1 inpatient or outpatient medical claim with an initial UF diagnosis (index date) from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014 were included. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data including pharmacy, outpatient and inpatient hospital claims were collected for 1 year pre-index and ≤5 years post-index. All-cause costs (adjusted to 2017 $US) were compared between cases and controls using multivariable regression models. Results: Analysis included 205,098 (Commercial) and 24,755 (Medicaid) case-control pairs. HCRU and total all-cause healthcare costs were higher for cases versus controls during the pre-index year and all years post-index. Total unadjusted mean all-cause costs were $1197 higher (p < .0001; Commercial) and $2813 higher (standardized difference 0.08; Medicaid) for cases during the pre-index year. Total adjusted mean all-cause costs in the first year post-index were $14,917 for cases versus $5717 for controls in the Commercial population, and $20,244 versus $10,544, respectively, in the Medicaid population. In Years 2-5 post-index, incremental mean adjusted total costs decreased, but remained significantly higher for cases versus controls at all time points in both populations (all p < .05). Conclusions: Costs were higher for women with UF compared to women without UF during the pre-index year and over 5 years post-index; differences were greatest in the first year post-index.