A real-world comparison of the clinical and economic utility of OVA1 and CA125 in assessing ovarian tumor malignancy risk.

Aim: This largest-of-its-kind study evaluated the clinical utility of CA125 and OVA1, commonly used as ovarian tumor markers for assessing the risk of malignancy. The research focused on the ability and utility of these tests to reliably predict patients at low risk for ovarian cancer. Clinical utility endpoints were 12-month maintenance of benign mass status, reduction in gynecologic oncologist referral, avoidable surgical intervention and associated cost savings. Materials & methods: This was a multicenter retrospective review of data from electronic medical records and administrative claims databases. Patients receiving a CA125 or OVA1 test between October 2018 and September 2020 were identified and followed for 12 months using site-specific electronic medical records to assess tumor status and utilization outcomes. Propensity score adjustment was used to control for confounding variables. Payer allowed amounts from Merative MarketScan Research Databases were used to estimate 12-month episode-of-care costs per patient, including surgery and other interventions. Results: Among 290 low-risk OVA1 patients, 99.0% remained benign for 12 months compared with 97.2% of 181 low-risk CA125 patients. The OVA1 cohort exhibited 75% lower odds of surgical intervention in the overall sample of patients (Adjusted OR: 0.251, p ≤ 0.0001), and 63% lower odds of gynecologic oncologist utilization among premenopausal women (Adjusted OR: 0.37, p = 0.0390) versus CA125. OVA1 demonstrated significant savings in surgical interventions ($2486, p ≤ 0.0001) and total episode-of-care costs ($2621, p ≤ 0.0001) versus CA125. Conclusion: This study underscores the utility of a reliably predictive multivariate assay for assessing ovarian cancer risk. For patients assessed at low risk of ovarian tumor malignancy, OVA1 is associated with a significant reduction in avoidable surgeries and substantial cost savings per patient. OVA1 is also associated with a significant reduction in subspecialty referrals for low-risk premenopausal patients.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Adherence and Treatment Cost in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Cardiovascular Disease.

Objective: To determine whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) adherence reduces health care-related costs or use in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients: A total of 23 million patients with CVD were identified in the Medicare fee-for-service database. Of the 65,198 who completed a sleep study between January 2016 and September 2018, 55,125 were diagnosed as having OSA and 1758 were identified in the 5% Medicare durable medical equipment (DME) database. Methods: Patients with DME claims were categorized as adherent (AD, treatment evidenced ≥91 days after CPAP initiation; n=614) or nonadherent (nAD, n=242) to CPAP therapy. In addition, 9881 individuals with CVD who were not diagnosed as having OSA after sleep testing and without CPAP initiation were included as control patients. Propensity score matching balanced the groups for age, sex, and comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus), resulting in 241 participants per cohort. Dependent variables included total episode-of-care, inpatient, outpatient, skilled nursing, home health, and DME costs across 12 months. Results: Total episode-of-care costs of AD participants ($6825) were lower than those of nAD ($11,312; P<.05) and control ($8102) participants. This difference (Δ) was attributable to fewer outpatient expenses (Δ$2290; P<.05) relative to the nAD group and fewer inpatient expenses (Δ$745) relative to the control group because skilled nursing costs were comparable between groups (P=.73). Conclusion: Adherence to CPAP treatment reduces annual health care-related expenses by 40% in Medicare patients with CVD and OSA.

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for High-Risk PCI: A Propensity-Adjusted Large-Scale Claims Dataset Analysis.

Impella was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for use during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs); however, its safety and efficacy compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has not been evaluated in contemporary practice and remains debated. We aimed to compare postapproval outcomes and costs of Impella versus IABP support for high-risk PCI in real-world practice across hospitals in the United States. We identified patients from the Premier Healthcare Database undergoing nonemergent Impella- or IABP-supported high-risk PCI. We used propensity adjustment to control baseline, procedure, and post-PCI medical treatment differences between treatment groups. We included patients undergoing nonemergent single-PCI procedures with either Impella or IABP support and excluded patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock or requiring >1 mechanical support devices during index hospitalization. Outcomes included in-hospital survival, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, index hospitalization length of stay, and costs. From April 2016 to June 2019, a total of 48,179 patients were treated with Impella or IABP mechanical circulatory support at 304 hospitals in the United States. Among these, we identified 2,156 patients undergoing nonemergent high-risk PCI treated with Impella (n = 1,447) or IABP (n = 709). After propensity adjustment, Impella use was associated with improved survival (odds ratio [OR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 2.36) and less MI (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46) and cardiogenic shock (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.74). Stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion, and acute kidney injury were similar between groups. In conclusion, this Premier Healthcare Database propensity-adjusted analysis, Impella use during nonemergent high-risk PCI was associated with improved survival and reduced in-hospital MI and cardiogenic shock compared with IABP.