Assessing utility values for treatment-related health states of acute myeloid leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Preference valuations of health status are essential in health technology and economic appraisal. This study estimated utilities for treatment-related health states of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and disutilities of severe adverse events (SAEs) using a representative sample of adults from the general population in the United States (US). METHODS: Treatment-related AML health states, defined based on literature and interviews with clinicians, included complete remission (CR), no CR, relapse, stem cell transplant (SCT), and post SCT short-term recovery. Six attributes with varying levels, including fever, lack of energy, problems with daily function, anxiety/depression, blood transfusions, and hospitalization, were used to define health states. An online survey using discrete choice experiment methodology was designed to capture preferences for health status scenarios including the identified attributes and key grade 3/4 chemotherapy-related SAEs. Health state utilities and SAE disutilities were generated from a conditional logistic regression with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Of the 300 survey participants, the demographic distributions were within a 3% margin of those in the 2010 US Census. CR had the highest utility value (0.875), followed by post-SCT short-term recovery (0.398), relapse (0.355), no CR (0.262), and SCT (0.158). Of the SAEs, serious infection had the highest decline in utility (0.218), followed by severe diarrhea (0.176), abnormally low blood cell counts (0.100), and severe redness/skin peeling (0.060). CONCLUSIONS: AML and treatments can result in reduced quality of life and impaired ability to perform daily activities. Findings of this study underline the value that society places on treatment-related AML health states and SAEs.

Discontinuation of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and clinical outcomes in the Rheumatoid Arthritis DMARD Intervention and Utilisation Study 2 (RADIUS 2).

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this analysis was to examine discontinuation and reasons for discontinuation from disease-modifying anti-rheumatic (DMARD) therapies in the RADIUS 2 registry, a long-term, open-label, observational study of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients who participated in RADIUS 2 initiated etanercept (ETN) therapy at study entry and were followed for 5 years. In this post hoc analysis, patients who had received ETN continuously from entry to month 4 were categorised by treatment at month 4: ETN monotherapy, ETN+methotrexate (MTX), ETN+MTX+other DMARDs (OTH), or ETN+OTH. Outcomes were assessed at month 4 and at the time of any subsequent treatment change, and included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). RESULTS: Of 3,484 patients analysed (982 ETN; 1,356 ETN+MTX; 537 ETN+MTX+OTH; 609 ETN+OTH), baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar across treatments. No treatment change occurred in 62.3%, 49.9%, 33.3%, and 37.1% of ETN, ETN+MTX, ETN+MTX+OTH, and ETN+OTH patients, respectively. The mean time on therapy from month 4 was longer for patients receiving ETN (23.3 months) or ETN+MTX (23.7 months) than those receiving ETN+MTX+OTH (18.0 months) or ETN+OTH (18.3 months). The greatest improvements in CDAI and HAQ-DI were seen in patients who continued on ETN. The most common reasons for discontinuing DMARD therapy were cost and ineffective treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who had received ≥4 months of ETN continued on ETN throughout the 5-year observation period. Patients with greatest clinical and disability improvements tended to continue on ETN.

Hospitalizations and healthcare costs associated with rifaximin versus lactulose treatment among commercially insured patients with hepatic encephalopathy in the United States.

AIMS: To assess healthcare costs and hospitalization rates associated with rifaximin therapy versus lactulose alone among patients at risk for hepatic encephalopathy (HE). METHODS AND MATERIALS: IBM Marketscan Commercial and Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart databases were used separately to identify commercially insured HE patients treated with rifaximin or lactulose alone, using an algorithm developed with clinical experts. HE-related hospitalizations were defined based on an algorithm using diagnosis codes and diagnosis-related group codes. HE-related/all-cause hospital admissions/days and healthcare costs were compared between rifaximin and lactulose episodes using incidence rate ratios and adjusted cost differences. RESULTS: In Marketscan, there were 13,515 [Optum: 5,217] rifaximin episodes and 9,946 [4,897] lactulose alone episodes included. Yearly rates of HE-related hospital admissions decreased by 33% [34%] when treated with rifaximin versus lactulose alone, and rates of HE-related hospital days similarly decreased by 43% [57%]. Yearly rates of all-cause hospital admissions decreased by 27% [27%]; rates of all-cause hospital days decreased by 33% [37%] during rifaximin episodes versus lactulose alone. This translated to $2,417 [$2,301] and $173 [$397] lower total mean medical costs and HE-related hospital costs per-patient-per-month, respectively (p < .05). Despite increased pharmacy costs associated with rifaximin, there was no change in total healthcare costs. Patients adherent to rifaximin incurred $2,891 [$2,340] lower total healthcare costs than non-adherent patients. In a simulated plan of 1 million lives, if 50% of HE patients treated with lactulose alone had rifaximin added on and were adherent to rifaximin therapy, the total cost savings would be $7.5 [$6.1] million per year ($0.62 [$0.50] per-member-per-month). CONCLUSIONS: Patients incurred significantly lower rates of HE-related and all-cause hospitalizations during rifaximin versus lactulose episodes, resulting in lower facility and professional costs. Cost savings may be possible if rifaximin adherence is improved in HE patients. LIMITATIONS: The study is subject to limitations common to claims-based analyses.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy treatment and discontinuation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase in the United States: a clinical practice perspective.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy discontinuation practice in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia chronic phase (CML-CP) was assessed in real-world practice prior to the release of recommendations on discontinuation. Data were collected from US oncologists/hematologists (through web-based physician survey and patient chart review) on TKI therapy discontinuation practice including monitoring, adequate response for discontinuation, relapse, and symptoms following discontinuation. From the physician survey, 34% of oncologists/hematologists attempted discontinuation, with two-thirds doing so outside of a trial. From the chart review, TKI therapy was discontinued in 3.4% of patients after they achieved an adequate response with the intention to remain CML-therapy-free until disease relapse. Among these patients, 21% relapsed and 17% had symptoms following discontinuation. There was a lack of consensus on the definition of adequate response suggesting that discontinuation was attempted without clear guidelines and under suboptimal conditions underscoring the need for physician education regarding guidelines for TKI therapy discontinuation.

Treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in commercially insured and Medicare populations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the setting, duration, and costs of induction and consolidation chemotherapy for adults with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), who are candidates for standard induction chemotherapy, in the US. METHODS: Adults newly-diagnosed with AML who received standard induction chemotherapy in an inpatient setting were identified from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (2006-2015) and SEER-Medicare (2007-2011) databases. Patients were observed from induction therapy start to the first of hematopoietic stem cell transplant, 180 days after induction discharge, health plan enrollment/data availability end, or death. Induction and consolidation chemotherapy were identified using Diagnosis-Related Group codes (chemotherapy with acute leukemia) or procedure codes for AML chemotherapy administration. AML treatment episode setting (inpatient or outpatient), duration, and costs (2015 USD, payers' perspective) were described for commercially insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries. RESULTS: In total, 459 commercially insured patients and 563 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age = 54 and 66 years; 53% and 54% male; respectively) were identified. For induction therapy, mean costs were $145,189 for commercially insured patients and $85,734 for Medicare beneficiaries, and median inpatient duration was 31 days (both). Following induction, 64% of commercially insured patients and 53% of Medicare beneficiaries had ≥1 consolidation cycle; 75% and 65% of consolidation cycles were in an inpatient setting, respectively. For consolidation cycles, in the inpatient setting, mean costs were $28,137 for commercially insured patients and $28,843 for Medicare beneficiaries, median cycle duration was 6 days (both); in the outpatient setting, mean costs were $11,271 for commercially insured patients and $5,803 Medicare beneficiaries, median duration was 5 days (both). LIMITATIONS: Granular information on chemotherapy type administered was unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first exploratory study providing a complete picture of recent AML treatment patterns and management costs among commercially insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries. There is substantial heterogeneity in the management and costs of AML.

Burden of Infections Among Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Receiving Dasatinib or Nilotinib: A Real-World Retrospective Healthcare Claims Study in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have been demonstrated to prolong survival in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). However, TKIs may be associated with an increased risk of infections. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with CML receiving dasatinib or nilotinib, with a focus on infection-related economic outcomes. METHODS: Two large administrative databases were used to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with CML who initiated dasatinib or nilotinib as first- (1L) or second-line (2L) therapy and were classified into the following 1L (dasatinib 1L/nilotinib 1L cohorts) or 2L (dasatinib 2L/nilotinib 2L) cohorts based on the initiated 1L/2L TKI therapy. Infection-related HRU and healthcare costs were compared between cohorts, separately for 1L and 2L. RESULTS: Cohorts included 1156 patients in the dasatinib 1L and 677 patients in the nilotinib 1L cohorts, 322 patients in the dasatinib 2L, and 207 in the nilotinib 2L cohorts. In 1L and 2L, infection-related HRU was higher for dasatinib than nilotinib cohorts. Infection-related inpatient (IP) days constituted a larger proportion of all-cause IP days in the 1L/2L dasatinib than 1L/2L nilotinib cohorts (dasatinib 1L/2L: 53%/58%; nilotinib 1L/2L: 50%/46%). Compared to the nilotinib cohort, the dasatinib cohort had higher all-cause total costs per patient per year by US$17,901 in 1L and $28,625 in 2L. Of the total cost difference, infection-related were $6048 (34%) in 1L and $28,192 (99%) in 2L, largely driven by IP cost differences (1L/2L: 96%/98%). CONCLUSIONS: Dasatinib was associated with higher HRU and healthcare costs compared to nilotinib, particularly related to infections. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation.

Treatment patterns and healthcare costs among newly-diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia receiving dasatinib or nilotinib as first-line therapy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment patterns and economic outcomes of dasatinib and nilotinib as 1st-line therapies for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). METHODS: Adult CML patients initiated on first-line dasatinib or nilotinib in 2010-2014 were identified from two large US administrative claims databases. Treatment patterns, tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) adherence and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs were measured from the 1st-line TKI initiation (index date) to the end of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 604 and 418 patients were included in the dasatinib and nilotinib cohorts (mean ages = 50.9 and 52.5 years, 46.4% and 45.7% female), respectively. Among the dasatinib patients, 91% started with 100 mg/day, 3% with <100 mg/day, and 6% with >100 mg/day. Among the nilotinib patients, 76% started with 600 mg/day, 16% with >600 mg/day, and 8% <600 mg/day. The dasatinib cohort had a higher hazard of dose decrease (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; p = .002) and of switching to another TKI (HR =1.62; p = .019) compared to the nilotinib cohort. The hazard of dose increase (HR =0.76; p = .423) and treatment discontinuation (HR =1.10; p = .372) were not significantly different between cohorts. There was also no significant difference in TKI adherence levels (mean proportion of days covered [PDC] difference over first 6 months = -0.0003, p = .981; mean PDC difference over first 12 months = -0.0022, p = .880) and HRU (inpatient day incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.03, p = .930; emergency room IRR =1.26, p = .197; and days with outpatient services IRR = 1.01, p = .842). The dasatinib cohort incurred higher healthcare costs by $749 per patient per month (p = .044) compared to the nilotinib cohort. LIMITATION: Information on CML phase and Sokal score was not available. CONCLUSIONS: Dasatinib was associated with an increased hazard of dose decrease and switching to another TKI and higher healthcare costs, vs nilotinib.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia with Better Adherence to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and Increased Molecular Monitoring Frequency.

BACKGROUND: Frequent molecular monitoring (qPCR tests), as recommended by evidence-based monitoring guidelines, is associated with higher adherence to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the management of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML); both factors have been associated with better clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To (a) estimate the effect of more frequent qPCR tests on health care resource utilization (HRU) and associated costs, including direct (effect of qPCR test frequency on HRU) and indirect (through TKI adherence) effects, and (b) develop an economic model applicable to multiple clinical practice scenarios. METHODS: Adult patients newly diagnosed with CML who started TKI firstline therapy were identified from U.S. administrative claims data (2010-2015). TKI adherence (medication possession ratio [MPR]), number of inpatient days, emergency room (ER) visits, outpatient service days, and mean costs per HRU event were measured during the first year of CML treatment. Direct and indirect effects of qPCR test frequency were estimated using multivariate regression models. Subsequently, an economic model was developed to assess the overall effect of varying qPCR test frequency on HRU and associated costs during the first year of CML treatment under different clinical practice scenarios; the scenario reported is the increase from 1 to 2 qPCR tests. RESULTS: Of the 1,431 patients included, 36% had no qPCR tests, the average qPCR test frequency was 1.6, and the average MPR was 0.86 during the first year of CML treatment. The direct effect of increasing qPCR test frequency by 1 was associated with 13.0% fewer inpatient days (adjusted incidence rate ratio [adjusted IRR] = 0.87; P = 0.010); 8.3% fewer ER visits (adjusted IRR = 0.92; P = 0.043); and 3.0% more outpatient service days (adjusted IRR = 1.03; P = 0.002). Each increase of 1 test was associated with an increase in TKI adherence by 2.2 percentage points (adjusted MPR difference = 0.022; P < 0.001). When considering the indirect effect of qPCR test frequency through TKI adherence, an increase of 1 qPCR test combined with an increase in TKI adherence by 2.2 percentage points was associated with a greater reduction of inpatient days from 13.0% to 15.2%, ER visits from 8.3% to 8.6%, and a smaller increase of outpatient service days from 3.0% to 2.6%. Based on the economic model, an increase from 1 to 2 qPCR tests, considering the increase in TKI adherence, was associated with a reduction of 0.87 (95% CI = -1.49, -0.18) inpatient days and 0.06 (95% CI = -0.12, 0.05) ER visits, an increase of 0.98 (95% CI = 0.25, 1.60) outpatient service days and a cost savings of $2,918 (95% CI = -5,213, -349) per patient per year. CONCLUSIONS: Closer alignment with the monitoring guidelines' recommended qPCR test frequency and better adherence to TKIs were associated with lower HRU and medical service costs. Managed care initiatives to increase qPCR test frequency and TKI adherence might benefit from an enhanced reduction because of the interaction between both factors. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which was involved in all stages of the study and in the decision to submit the report for publication. Latremouille-Viau, Guerin, Gagnon-Sanschagrin, and Dea are employees of Analysis Group, which received consulting fees from Novartis Pharmaceuticals for work on this study. Joseph is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals and owns stock in Amgen and Pfizer. Cohen was an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals at the time of this study. Portions of this study were presented online (beginning May 20, 2016) as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, on June 3-7, 2016, and as a poster at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, on December 3-6, 2016. Study concept and design were contributed by Latremouille-Viau and Guerin, along with the other authors. Gagnon-Sanschagrin and Dea took the lead in data collection, assisted by the other authors, and data interpretation was performed by Cohen and Joseph, along with the other authors. The manuscript was written by Latremouille-Viau, along with the other authors, and revised by Joseph, along with the other authors.

Physicians' perceived knowledge of and responsibility for managing patients' out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs.

BACKGROUND: Most insurers in the US have implemented incentive-based formularies that rely on out-of-pocket costs to influence prescription drug utilization. Medicare Part D plans have broadly adopted such benefit designs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physicians' perceptions of their knowledge of formularies and out-of-pocket costs, factors that influence knowledge of costs, physicians' perceived responsibility for helping patients manage their out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and physicians' perceptions of the role of pharmacists in managing these costs. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was mailed to a random sample of 1200 physician members of the California Medical Association; a phone survey of nonresponders was then conducted. RESULTS: Of 1027 surveys delivered to correct addresses, 509 (49.6%) responses were received. Thirty-three percent of physicians reported that they were usually or always aware of patients' formularies and 20% were usually or always aware of patients' out-of-pocket costs for medications. Surgeons, emergency department physicians, and physicians that prescribe from more formularies than other physicians are less likely to be aware of patients' out-of-pocket costs, while physicians in large practices and those who use computers to prescribe are more aware. While 91% of physicians agreed that it is important that patients' out-of-pocket costs be managed, 40% somewhat or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to help. Sixty-five percent of physicians believed that it is the responsibility of the pharmacist to be familiar with patients' out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often lack the knowledge to assist patients in the management of their out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs and they depend on pharmacists to help patients manage those costs. Computer order entry and resources available in large physician organizations improve physicians' awareness of out-of-pocket costs when prescribing.

Physicians' perceptions of relevant prescription drug costs: do costs to the individual patient or to the population matter most?

OBJECTIVES: Physicians may be aware of at least 2 types of costs when prescribing: patient's out-of-pocket costs and the actual costs of the medication. We evaluated physicians' perceptions about relevant costs for prescription drugs and the importance of communication about these costs. STUDY DESIGN: Mailed survey to a random sample of 1200 physician members of the California Medical Association, and a phone survey of a sample of nonresponders. METHODS: Descriptive statistics of survey items, McNemar's test to compare survey item responses, and logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between physician, practice, and system variables and physicians' perceptions of relevant medication costs. RESULTS: Of respondents with correct addresses, 49.6% responded to the survey; 13% of nonresponders were contacted by phone. Approximately 91% and 80% of physicians reported that it is important to manage patients' out-of-pocket costs and total medication costs, respectively. When comparing the relative importance of managing the 2 types of costs, 59% of physicians agreed that managing patients' out-of-pocket costs was more important than managing the total medication costs and only 16% disagreed. Physicians believed it was more important to discuss out-of-pocket costs than total costs with patients (P < .0001), but only 15% of physicians reported discussing out-of-pocket costs frequently and 5% reported talking about total medication costs frequently. Physicians who managed more Medicare patients had a greater likelihood than physicians managing fewer Medicare patients of prioritizing out-of-pocket cost rather than total cost management (P = .038), and generalists had a greater likelihood than medical subspecialists (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians prioritize managing out-of-pocket costs over total medication costs. Pharmacy benefit designs that use patient out-of-pocket cost incentives to influence utilization are addressing the costs to which physicians may be most responsive. When physicians face conflicts between managing patients' out-of-pocket costs and total costs, they will likely try to protect the patients' resources at the expense of the insurer or society. Efforts to align patients', insurers', and societies' incentives will simplify prescribing decisions and result in better value in prescribing.

Clinical Outcomes and Biologic Costs of Switching Between Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in US Veterans with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and drug/administration costs of treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating TNFi therapy. The analysis compared patients initiating and continuing a single TNFi with patients who subsequently switched to a different TNFi. METHODS: Data from patients enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry who initiated treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab from 2003 to 2010 were analyzed. Outcomes included duration of therapy, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28), and direct drug and drug administration costs. RESULTS: Of 563 eligible patients, 262 initiated a single TNFi therapy, 142 restarted their initial TNFi after a ≥90-day gap in treatment (interrupted therapy), and 159 switched to a different TNFi. Patients who switched had higher mean DAS28 before starting TNFi therapy than patients with single or interrupted therapy: 5.3 vs 4.5 or 4.6, respectively. Mean duration of the first course was 34.3 months for single therapy, 18.3 months for interrupted therapy, and 17.7 months for switched therapy. Mean post-treatment DAS28 was highest for patients who switched TNFi. Mean annualized costs for first course were $13,800 for single therapy, $13,200 for interrupted therapy, and $14,200 for switched therapy; mean annualized costs for second course were $12,800 for interrupted therapy and $15,100 for switched therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients who switched TNFi had higher pre-treatment DAS28 and higher overall costs than patients who received the same TNFi as either single or interrupted therapy. FUNDING: This research was funded by Immunex Corp., a fully owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc., and by VA HSR&D Grant SHP 08-172.

Cost and effectiveness of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis in a commercially insured population.

BACKGROUND: Administrative claims contain detailed medication, diagnosis, and procedure data, but the lack of clinical outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) historically has limited their use in comparative effectiveness research. A claims-based algorithm was developed and validated to estimate effectiveness for RA from data for adherence, dosing, and treatment modifications. OBJECTIVE: To implement the claims-based algorithm in a U.S. managed care database to estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient. METHODS: The cohort included patients with RA aged 18-63 years in the Optum Research Database who initiated biologic treatment between January 2007 and December 2010 and were continuously enrolled 6 months before through 12 months after the first claim for the biologic (the index date). Patients were categorized as effectively treated by the claims-based algorithm if they met all of the following 6 criteria in the 12-month post-index period: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥ 80% for subcutaneous biologics, or at least as many infusions as specified in U.S. labeling for intravenous biologics; (2) no increase in biologic dose; (3) no switch in biologics; (4) no new nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid treatment; and (6) no more than 1 glucocorticoid injection. Drug costs (all biologics) and administration costs (intravenous biologics) were obtained from allowed amounts on claims. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total 1-year biologic cost divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated with that index biologic. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the total health care costs per effectively treated patient during the first year of biologic therapy. RESULTS: A total of 5,474 individuals were included in the analysis. The index biologic was categorized as effective by the algorithm for 28.9% of patients overall, including 30.6% for subcutaneous biologics and 22.1% for intravenous biologics. The index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year for 32.7% of etanercept (794/2,425), 32.3% of golimumab (40/124), 30.2% of abatacept (89/295), 27.7% of adalimumab (514/1,857), and 19.0% of infliximab (147/773) patients. Mean 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined in the algorithm, was lowest for etanercept ($43,935), followed by golimumab ($49,589), adalimumab ($52,752), abatacept ($62,300), and infliximab ($101,402). The rank order in the sensitivity analysis was the same, except for golimumab and etanercept.  CONCLUSIONS: Using a claims-based algorithm in a large commercial claims database, etanercept was the most effective and had the lowest biologic cost per effectively treated patient with RA.

Pharmacy data in the VA health care system.

Recent advances in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care data systems have greatly increased access to operational pharmacy information. This article presents a brief guide to VA pharmacy data sources: the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture files, the Pharmacy Benefits Management database, Decision Support System (DSS) National Data Extracts for inpatient and outpatient care, the planned DSS National Pharmacy Extract, DSS databases at local VA facilities, and the Non-VA Fee Basis files. Depending on the source, available data elements include patient demographics, clinical care information, characteristics of the medication and of the prescribing physician, and cost. Access policies are detailed for VA and non-VA researchers. Linking these sources to VA databases containing data on inpatient and outpatient services offers a comprehensive view of health care within several VA populations of general interest, including people over age 65 and those with physical and psychiatric disabilities.

Cost of tumor necrosis factor blockers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis in a multistate Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the annual cost per treated patient for the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers, etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients covered by Medicaid. METHODS: The MarketScan Medicaid Multistate Database was used to identify adult RA patients who used etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab (index agents) from 2007 to 2011. The index date was the first claim preceded by 180 days and followed by 360 days of continuous enrollment. Patients with other conditions for which these agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration were excluded. "Continuing" patients had one or more pre-index claim for their index biologic, and "new" patients did not. Cost per treated patient was calculated in the 360 day post-index period for each index agent as the total index drug and administration cost to the payer and the costs of switched-to agents divided by the number of patients who received the index agent. RESULTS: A total of 1,085 patients met the study criteria. Forty-eight percent received etanercept (n=521); 37% received adalimumab (n=405); and 15% received infliximab (n=159). Patient characteristics were similar across groups (mean age 47.4 years, 83% female). The annual cost per treated patient was lowest for etanercept ($18,466), followed by adalimumab ($20,983) and infliximab ($26,516). For all agents, annual costs were lower for new patients ($17,996 for etanercept, $18,992 for adalimumab, and $24,756 for infliximab) than for continuing patients ($19,004 for etanercept, $24,438 for adalimumab, and $28,127 for infliximab). CONCLUSION: Etanercept had lower costs per treated patient than adalimumab or infliximab in both new and continuing Medicaid enrollees with RA.

Use of a validated algorithm to estimate the annual cost of effective biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using a claims-based algorithm for effectiveness. METHODS: Patients with RA aged 18-63 years in the IMS PharMetrics Plus database were categorized as effectively treated if they met all six criteria: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥80% (subcutaneous) or at least as many infusions as specified in US labeling (intravenous); (2) no biologic dose increase; (3) no biologic switch; (4) no new non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid; and (6) ≤1 glucocorticoid injection. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total cost of the index biologic (drug plus intravenous administration) divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated. Similar methods were used for the index biologic in the second year and for a second biologic after a switch. RESULTS: Rates that the index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year were 31.0% etanercept (2243/7247), 28.6% adalimumab (1426/4991), 28.6% abatacept (332/1160), 27.2% golimumab (71/261), and 20.2% infliximab (474/2352). Mean biologic cost per effectively treated patient, per the algorithm, was $50,141 etanercept, $53,386 golimumab, $56,942 adalimumab, $73,516 abatacept, and $114,089 infliximab. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient, using this algorithm, was lower for patients who continued the index biologic in the second year and higher after switching. CONCLUSIONS: When a claims-based algorithm was applied to a large commercial claims database, etanercept was categorized as the most effective and had the lowest estimated 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient. This proxy for effectiveness from claims databases was validated against a clinical effectiveness scale, but analyses of the second year or the year after a biologic switch were not included in the validation. Costs of other medications were not included in cost calculations.

Estimating effectiveness and cost of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: application of a validated algorithm to commercial insurance claims.

PURPOSE: The aim of this analysis was to implement a claims-based algorithm to estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient for biologics approved for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This retrospective analysis included commercially insured adults (aged 18-63 years) with RA in a commercial database, who initiated biologic treatment with abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab between 2007 and 2010. The algorithm defined effectiveness as having all of the following: high adherence, no biologic dose increase, no biologic switching, no new nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, no increased or new oral glucocorticoid use, and no more than 1 glucocorticoid injection. For each biologic, cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total drug and administration costs (from allowed amounts on claims), divided by the number of patients categorized as effectively treated. FINDINGS: Of 15,351 patients, 12,018 (78.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 49.7 (9.6) years. The algorithm categorized treatment as effective in the first year for 30% (1899/6374) of etanercept, 30% (1396/4661) of adalimumab, 20% (560/2765) of infliximab, 27% (361/1338) of abatacept, and 29% (62/213) of golimumab treated patients. The 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined by the algorithm, was nominally lower for subcutaneously injected biologics than for infused biologics. The 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined by the algorithm, was lowest for etanercept ($49,952), followed by golimumab ($50,189), adalimumab ($52,858), abatacept ($71,866), and infliximab ($104,333). IMPLICATIONS: Algorithm-defined effectiveness was similar for biologics other than infliximab. The 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined by the algorithm, was nominally lower for subcutaneously injected biologics than for infused biologics.

Persistence and dose escalation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Limited evidence exists comparing the persistence, effectiveness, and costs of biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness studies are needed to understand real-world experience with these agents. We evaluated treatment patterns, costs, and effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents in patients enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry. METHODS: Observational data from the VARA registry and linked administrative databases were analyzed. Longitudinal data from VARA patients initiating adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), or infliximab (IFX) from 2003 (the date all agents were available within the Veteran Affairs) to 2010 were analyzed. Outcomes included Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), treatment persistence, dose escalation, and direct costs of drugs and drug administration. RESULTS: For 563 eligible patients, baseline DAS28, DAS28 improvements, and persistence on initial treatment were similar across agents. Fewer patients receiving ETN (n = 5/290; 2%) underwent dose escalation than did patients taking ADA (n = 32/204; 16%) or IFX (n = 44/69; 64%). Annual costs for first course of TNFi therapy were lower for injectable ADA ($13,100 US) and ETN ($13,500 US) than for intravenously administered IFX ($16,900 US). CONCLUSION: Despite similar persistence and clinical disease activity for these TNFi agents, rates of dose escalation were highest with ADA and IFX. Higher overall costs were noted for IFX without increases in effectiveness.

Annual acquisition and administration cost of biologic response modifiers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate annual biologic response modifier (BRM) cost per treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, or ustekinumab. METHODS: This was a cohort study of 69,349 commercially insured individuals in a nationwide claims database with one of these conditions that had a claim for one of these BRMs between January 2008 and December 2010 (the index BRM/index date). Cost per treated patient was calculated as the total BRM acquisition and administration cost to the payer in the first year after the index date (including costs of other BRMs after switching) divided by the number of patients who received the index BRM. Etanercept was selected as the reference for comparisons. RESULTS: Etanercept was the most commonly used index BRM (n = 32,298; 47%), followed by adalimumab (n = 20,582; 30%), infliximab (n = 11,157; 16%), abatacept (n = 2633; 4%), rituximab (n = 1359; 2%), golimumab (n = 687; <1%), ustekinumab (n = 388; <1%), and certolizumab (n = 245; <1%). Using etanercept as the reference, the cost per treated patient in the first year across all four conditions was 102% for adalimumab and 108% for infliximab. Newer BRMs had costs relative to etanercept that were 90% to 102% for rheumatoid arthritis, 132% for psoriasis, 100% for psoriatic arthritis, and 94% for ankylosing spondylitis. LIMITATIONS: Potential study limitations were the lack of clinical information (e.g., disease severity, treatment outcomes) or indirect costs, the inability to compare costs of newer BRMs across all four conditions, and much smaller sample sizes for newer BRMs. CONCLUSIONS: Of the BRMs that are approved for indications within all four conditions studied, etanercept had the lowest cost per treated patient when assessed across all four conditions.

Costs of tumor necrosis factor blockers per treated patient using real-world drug data in a managed care population.

BACKGROUND: Several anti-inflammatory biologic medications are available in the United States for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate-to-severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. The tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab are approved for use in adults with any of these conditions, but predicting the annual costs of TNF-blocker treatment is complex due to differences in dosing schedules, treatment gaps, switching between TNF blockers, and dose escalation over time. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the annual cost per treated patient from the payer perspective for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. METHODS: Adults in the IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database were analyzed if they had at least 1 claim for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab between February 1, 2008, and July 5, 2010, and were continuously enrolled for at least 180 days before (pre-index period) through 360 days after the index claim (the first TNF-blocker claim after 6 months of continuous enrollment in the study period). Patients had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis, or a combination of these conditions, in the pre-index period. Cost was based on dose and price using April 2012 wholesale acquisition cost. Costs of administration were included for the first subcutaneous dose (etanercept or adalimumab) for new patients and for every intravenous dose (infliximab). Total TNF-blocker drug and administration costs, including nonindex TNF-blocker costs among patients who switched treatments, were divided by number of patients to yield cost per treated patient for each index TNF blocker. Subgroup analyses included cost by condition and cost for patients who were new to TNF-blocker treatment (no index TNF-blocker claim in the pre-index period) or continuing TNF-blocker treatment. RESULTS: Of the 30,107 patients in the analysis, the majority received etanercept (15,488 patients; 51.4%), followed by adalimumab (8,959 patients; 29.8%) and infliximab (5,660 patients; 18.8%). Approximately 2 in 3 patients (18,897 patients) were continuing TNF-blocker treatment, including 66.0%, 52.6%, and 70.0% of patients in the etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab groups, respectively. Across all indications, the annual TNF-blocker cost per treated patient was lowest for etanercept, followed by adalimumab and then infliximab, respectively: overall ($17,767, $19,272, and $24,273); new patients ($17,270, $17,959, and $21,482); and continuing patients ($18,203, $20,453, and $25,468). Cost by condition among all patients ranged from $14,838 to $20,251 for etanercept, from $18,051 to $20,233 for adalimumab, and from $22,939 to $28,519 for infliximab. Cost by condition was 3% to 31% greater for adalimumab than for etanercept (relative cost, 103% to 131%), except among patients with psoriasis (relative cost, 94%), and was 26% to 72% greater for infliximab than for etanercept (relative cost, 126% to 172%). Approximately 9% to 11% of patients in each group switched TNF blockers in the first year, and the costs of nonindex TNF blockers comprised 16.8% of the total cost for etanercept, 13.4% for adalimumab, and 6.9% for infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis, or some combination of these conditions, etanercept had a lower cost per treated patient than adalimumab or infliximab, except in patients with psoriasis alone. In these patients, adalimumab had a lower cost per treated patient than etanercept or infliximab.