Evaluation of Resource Utilization and Treatment Patterns in Patients with Actinic Keratosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource utilization and treatment patterns between patients with actinic keratosis (AK) treated with ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) and those treated with other field-directed AK therapies. METHODS: A retrospective, propensity-score-matched, cohort study compared refill/repeat and adding-on/switching patterns and outpatient visits and prescriptions (health care resource utilization) over 6 months in patients receiving IngMeb versus those receiving imiquimod, 5-fluorouracil, diclofenac sodium, and methyl aminolevulinate or aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (MAL/ALA-PDT). RESULTS: The final sample analyzed included four matched treatment cohort pairs (IngMeb and comparator; n = 790-971 per treatment arm). Refill rates were similar except for imiquimod (15% vs. 9% for imiquimod and IngMeb, respectively; P < 0.05). MAL/ALA-PDT treatment repetition rates were higher than IngMeb refill rates (20% vs. 10%; P < 0.05). Topical agent add-on/switch rates were comparable. PDT had higher switch rates than did IngMeb (5% vs. 2%; P < 0.05). The IngMeb cohort had a significantly lower proportion of patients with at least one AK-related outpatient visit during the 6-month follow-up than did any other cohort: versus imiquimod (50% vs. 66%; P < 0.0001), versus 5-fluorouracil (50% vs. 69%; P < 0.0001), versus diclofenac sodium (51% vs. 56%; P = 0.034), and versus MAL/ALA-PDT (50% vs. 100%; P < 0.0001). There were significantly fewer AK-related prescriptions among patients receiving IngMeb than among patients in other cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Results based on the first 6 months after treatment initiation suggested that most field-directed AK therapies had clinically comparable treatment patterns except imiquimod, which was associated with higher refill rates, and PDT, which was associated with significantly more frequent treatment sessions and higher switching rates. IngMeb was also associated with significantly fewer outpatient visits than were other field-directed therapies.

Treatment persistence among patients with rheumatoid disease (RA, AS, PsA) treated with subcutaneous biologics in Germany.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are frequently treated with subcutaneous biologic therapies when disease progresses or when response to synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is inadequate. This study analyzed treatment persistence and treatment patterns for RA, AS, and PsA patients in Germany initiating subcutaneous biologic therapies with and without prior DMARDs use. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Electronic Medical Record database of IMS Disease Analyzer, Germany. Patients who were ≥18 years old; had at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code of RA, AS, or PsA during the study period; and had exposure to a subcutaneous biologic agent between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2012 were selected. Patients were required to have continuous observation ≥12 months prior to and after index medication date. Persistence was defined as consecutive days from treatment initiation until treatment discontinuation (≥60-day lapse in medication coverage). Patients were stratified by pre-index use of DMARDs. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to assess time to discontinuation, and logistic regression was conducted to identify characteristics associated with persistence. A total of 576 RA, 108 AS, and 197 PsA patients without biologic experience during the pre-index period were selected. The percentages of RA, AS, and PsA patients persistent ≥12 months were 51.9, 48.1, and 57.9 %, respectively. Median persistent time over 12 months was 365.0 days for RA (mean 245.9 days), 281.0 for AS (mean 228.5), and 365.0 for PsA (mean 264.1). In the RA cohort, a significantly higher proportion of those with pre-index DMARD use were persistent compared to those without pre-index DMARD (56.1 vs. 33.3 %, p = 0.0001). No significant differences were observed for the AS and PsA cohorts. Multivariate analyses confirmed that DMARD-experienced patients were 2.45 times more likely to be persistent with subcutaneous biologic therapy in the RA cohort. Switching between subcutaneous biologics occurred in <10 % of patients in all three cohorts. In the subpopulations with at least two prescriptions for the index subcutaneous biologic and who remained persistent on the index subcutaneous biologic, dose escalation of ≥50 % occurred in 50, 60, and 49 % in the RA, AS, and PsA cohorts, respectively. Among RA, AS, and PsA patients newly initiating subcutaneous biologic agents in Germany, persistence at 12 months is relatively low (48-58 %). For the RA cohort, patients with pre-index DMARD use are more persistent than patients without. The majority of patients do not switch between subcutaneous biologics. A notable proportion of patients who remained persistent on their index subcutaneous biologic had a dose escalation. There are opportunities to improve outcomes of patient with rheumatoid disease through improved medication persistence.

Clinical and economic burden of breakthrough seizures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure health-care resource utilization and costs in treatment-adherent, previously seizure-free patients with epilepsy who were treated in the inpatient/emergency room (ER) setting for new-onset seizures, compared with matched controls. METHODS: The study used a retrospective case/control study design using administrative claims from the IMS PharMetrics™ database. We identified adult patients with epilepsy with 1+ ER visit/hospitalization with primary diagnosis of epilepsy between 1/1/2006 and 3/31/2011, preceded by 6months of seizure-free activity and antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment adherence (≥80% of days covered by any AED); the first observed seizure defined the "breakthrough" seizure/index event. Treatment-adherent patients with epilepsy without any ER/hospital admission for seizures served as controls: an outpatient epilepsy-related medical claim within the selection window was chosen at random as the index date. The following were continuous enrollment requirements for all patients: ≥12-month pre- and ≥6-month postindex. Each case matched 1:1 to a control using propensity score matching. All-cause and epilepsy-related (epilepsy/convulsion diagnosis, AED pharmacy) resource utilization and unadjusted and adjusted direct health-care costs (per person, 2012 US dollars (USD)) were assessed in a 6-month follow-up period. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: There were 5729 cases and 14,437 controls eligible. The final sample comprised 5279 matched case/control pairs. In unadjusted analyses, matched cases had significantly higher rates of all-cause hospitalization and ER visits compared to controls and significantly higher total all-cause direct health-care costs (median $12,714 vs. $5095, p<0.001) and total epilepsy-related costs among cases vs. controls (median $7293 vs. $1712, p<0.001), driven by higher inpatient costs. Among cases, costs increased with each subsequent seizure (driven by inpatient costs). Cases had 2.3 times higher adjusted all-cause costs and 8.1 times higher adjusted epilepsy-related costs than controls (both p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Inpatient/ER-treated breakthrough seizures occurred among 28.4% of our treatment-adherent study sample and were associated with significant incremental health-care utilization and costs, primarily driven by hospitalizations. Our findings suggest the need for better seizure control via optimal patient management and the use of effective AED therapy, which can potentially lower health-care costs.

Modelling the value of innovative treatments for Alzheimer's disease in the United States.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the predominant cause of dementia and a leading cause of death globally. With no cure or treatment to slow disease progression, AD-related healthcare costs are substantial and increase as the severity of the disease progresses. Given the complexity of this disease, including initial pathophysiological damage occurring decades before clinical manifestation, finding new impactful treatments for AD relies on highly innovative research and development. However, such sizable and sustained investments bring into question whether conventional value assessment models are fit for this purpose. In this article, we examine the importance and challenges of assimilating the perspectives of varied stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, health systems, payers, and society at large, into a comprehensive value assessment model that may be well suited for a breakthrough treatment for AD.

Real-world propensity score comparison of treatment effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a vs. subcutaneous interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, and teriflunomide in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have been approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). In separately conducted clinical trials, peginterferon beta-1a, subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (SC IFN beta-1a), glatiramer acetate (GA), and teriflunomide have demonstrated efficacy for reducing relapses. No head-to-head phase III clinical trials have directly compared the treatment efficacy of peginterferon beta-1a with these other DMTs. OBJECTIVES: A propensity score-based comparison was conducted of the treatment effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a vs. SC IFN beta-1a, GA, and teriflunomide among patients with RRMS identified from a large U.S. administrative healthcare claims database. METHODS: Adult patients (18-65 years of age) who had ≥1 claim for an MS diagnosis between November 2013 and June 2017 and ≥1 claim for peginterferon beta-1a, SC IFN beta-1a, GA, or teriflunomide between November 1, 2014, and March 31, 2017 were identified from the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial database. The index date was the first claim of a patient's DMT initiated. Only patients who had ≥12 months of insurance enrollment pre-index (baseline period) and ≥90 days post-index (variable length follow-up period) were included. Patients were grouped into cohorts according to the index DMT. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were evaluated. Propensity score matching (PSM) was separately conducted for pairwise comparisons of treatment effectiveness between peginterferon beta-1a and the other DMT cohorts. During the post-index follow-up period, annualized relapse rate (ARR; relapse defined as hospitalization or outpatient visit with subsequent treatment), annualized number and length of inpatient stays, and the number of claims for durable medical equipment were evaluated. RESULTS: With PSM, there were 325 patients (mean age: 46.0 years) in the peginterferon beta-1a cohort compared to 967 (mean age: 46.9 years) in the SC IFN beta-1a cohort; likewise there were 564 patients (mean age: 47.4 years) in the peginterferon beta-1a and 1688 (mean age: 47.6 years) in the GA cohort; and finally there were 584 patients (mean age: 49.1 years) in the peginterferon beta-1a cohort and 1742 (mean age: 49.0 years) in the teriflunomide cohort. During the post-index follow-up period, the ARR did not significantly differ between the peginterferon beta-1a and SC IFN beta-1a cohorts; the ARR was lower among patients treated with peginterferon beta-1a than among those treated with GA (Least squares mean [LSM] estimate: 0.25 vs. 0.31; LSM ratio: 0.809; P=0.027) or teriflunomide (LSM estimate: 0.26 vs. 0.37; LSM ratio: 0.704; P<0.001). The annualized mean number and length of inpatient stays and the mean number of claims for durable medical equipment during the post-index follow-up did not differ between the matched peginterferon beta-1a and GA cohorts nor the peginterferon beta-1a and teriflunomide cohorts. CONCLUSION: In this real-world comparative analysis of patients with similar patient characteristics, treatment with peginterferon beta-1a was associated with lower ARRs than treatment with either GA or teriflunomide; ARRs did not differ among patients treated with SC IFN beta-1a. Also, all other measured secondary outcomes did not differ between study cohorts. These real-world data may help support decision-making in the treatment of patients with RRMS.

Number needed to treat in indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: For dichotomous outcomes, odds ratio (OR) is one of the usual summary measures of indirect treatment comparison. A corresponding number needed to treat (NNT) estimate may facilitate understanding of the treatment effect. METHODS: We show how to estimate NNT based on OR results of a matching adjusted indirect comparison. We also have derived the explicit formula of its 95% CIs by applying the delta method, and as an alternative, a simulation-based method. RESULTS: The method was applied in a case study example in radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) patients, comparing lenvatinib to sorafenib. For every two RR-DTC patients treated with lenvatinib instead of sorafenib, one fewer would have progressed and for every eight RR-DTC patients treated with lenvatinib instead of sorafenib, one fewer would have died. CONCLUSION: Using NNT to summarize the results of a matching adjusted indirect comparison can help the clinicians to better understand the results in addition to OR.

Administrative claims analysis of utilization and costs of care in health plan members with atopic dermatitis who had prior use of a topical corticosteroid and who initiate therapy with pimecrolimus or tacrolimus.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus ointment are approved as second-line therapy for short-term and intermittent noncontinuous long-term treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 2 years or older who have failed to respond adequately to other topical prescription treatments (e.g., topical corticosteroids), or when those treatments are not advisable; pimecrolimus is indicated for mild to- moderate AD and tacrolimus for moderate-to-severe AD. Comparative data on the effects of pimecrolimus versus tacrolimus on AD-related health care utilization and costs among similar patients seen in typical clinical practice are currently unavailable. OBJECTIVE: To compare utilization and costs of AD-related medical care in health plan members with AD who had prior use of a topical corticosteroid and who subsequently initiate therapy with pimecrolimus cream or tacrolimus ointment. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective study using an administrative claims database with dates of service from August 1, 2000, through October 31, 2003, and representing approximately 2.5 million members in health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, and Medicare and Medicaid plans mostly located in the cities of Chicago, Kansas City, and Phoenix and in the states of Kentucky, Florida, and Texas. The study sample included all members with 1 or more pharmacy claims for a topical corticosteroid and a diagnosis of AD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 691.XX (excluding 691.0X), or 692.XX (excluding 692.0X-692.8X)] who subsequently had 1 or more pharmacy claims for pimecrolimus or tacrolimus. AD-related utilization and medical care costs (plan payments plus member cost share) over 12 months of follow-up were compared between the pimecrolimus and tacrolimus groups. Because information on disease severity was not available in the administrative claims data, propensity matching was used to control for differences between groups in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and pretreatment utilization of AD-related medical care services. RESULTS: Before matching, compared with the tacrolimus group (n = 197), members in the pimecrolimus group (n = 197) were older (mean age of 38 vs. 32 years, P = 0.022), had fewer topical corticosteroid pharmacy claims (mean 2.08 vs. 3.01, P = 0.002), and had fewer grams of corticosteroids dispensed (mean 132 vs. 193, P = 0.029) in the 12 months prior to treatment. After matching, there were 157 members in each group with no statistically significant differences in pretreatment characteristics. During the 12-month follow-up period, the mean (median) number of pharmacy claims was 1.8 (1.0) for pimecrolimus versus 2.0 (1.0) for tacrolimus and the mean (median) grams of study medication were 102 (60) and 105 (60), respectively. Members in the pimecrolimus group received a lower average number of prescriptions for any topical corticosteroids (1.37 vs. 2.04, P = 0.021) and for high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.61 vs. 1.04, P = 0.023) and were less likely to initiate alternative therapy (5% vs. 17%, P <0.001) or receive antistaphylococcal antibiotics (16% vs. 27%, P = 0.014). Members in the pimecrolimus group had lower average (median) AD-related expenditures (75% to 78% attributable to AD drug cost) compared with matched tacrolimus members ($263 [$270] vs. $361 [$398], P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: In health plan members with AD who had previously received at least 1 topical corticosteroid prescription, the customary use of pimecrolimus or tacrolimus was 1 to 2 prescriptions in 12 months of followup and only a median of 60 grams of topical medication. The difference in AD-related utilization and costs between pimecrolimus and tacrolimus was small, less than $100 per year, but favored pimecrolimus. Further research using validated measures of disease severity to control for potential confounding is needed to confirm the results of this observational study.

Treatment Patterns among Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder with or without Psychiatric or Neurologic Comorbidities in Sweden: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children/adolescents and occurs frequently with psychiatric/neurologic comorbidities. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of psychiatric/neurologic comorbidities on pharmacotherapy patterns among patients with ADHD in Sweden. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using medical records from a regional database in Sweden. Patients aged 6-17 years, with ≥1 prescription for ADHD medication between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2009, and continuously active in the database for ≥12 months before and after their prescription index date were selected. Patients were categorized as ADHD alone (ADHD-only) or with comorbidities (ADHD-comorbid). Between-group differences were analyzed before and after adjusting for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: Data on 1794 patients (1083 ADHD-only; 711 ADHD-comorbid) were analyzed. Among newly treated patients, 21.7% augmented their index therapy (ADHD-only, 20.5%; ADHD-comorbid, 24.4%; p = 0.23). After adjustment, ADHD-only patients were less likely (p = 0.002) to augment versus ADHD-comorbid patients [odds ratio = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27, 0.73]. ADHD-comorbid patients received more prescriptions versus ADHD-only patients (mean 13.1 vs 10.0; p < 0.001), and had more outpatient visits (mean 11.9 vs. 8.1; p < 0.001) and hospitalizations (10.7% vs. 6.0%; p < 0.001). After adjustment, ADHD-only patients had fewer outpatient visits (p < 0.001) and referrals (p < 0.001) versus ADHD-comorbid patients (visits: ß = -0.21, 95% CI -0.28, -0.13; referrals: ß = -0.25, 95% CI -0.33, -0.18). CONCLUSION: Patients with ADHD with comorbidities had more hospitalizations, physician visits, and medication prescriptions during 12 months' follow-up than did those with ADHD alone. ADHD therapy augmentation was prevalent among children/adolescents with ADHD, even among those without psychiatric/neurologic comorbidities.

Comparative treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization and costs of atomoxetine and long-acting methylphenidate among children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) imposes a substantial burden on patients and their families. OBJECTIVE: A retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study compared treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among children/adolescents with ADHD aged 6-17 years at treatment initiation (index) in Germany who received atomoxetine (ATX) or long-acting methylphenidate (LA-MPH) monotherapy. METHODS: Patients received at least one prescription for their index medication (ATX/LA-MPH) during 2006-2010; the first prescription marked the index date. ATX- and LA-MPH-indexed cohorts were matched 1:1 (n = 737); a patient subset was identified that had not received ADHD-indicated medications in 12 months prior to index (novel initiators: ATX, n = 486; LA-MPH, n = 488). Treatment patterns were evaluated among novel initiators, and HRU and costs among the matched cohorts in the 12 months after index. RESULTS: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between the novel initiator patient subsets. ATX-indexed novel initiators had significantly longer persistence to index medication [mean (standard deviation; SD) days: 222.0 (133.9) vs 203.2 (135.0), P = 0.029) but higher switching rates (8.8 vs 5.5 %, P = 0.045) than LA-MPH-indexed novel initiators. The total ATX-indexed cohort required more prescriptions [any medication; mean (SD): 20.9 (11.5) vs 15.7 (9.0), P < 0.001] and outpatient visits [mean (SD): 10.1 (6.3) vs 8.3 (5.3), P < 0.001], and incurred significantly higher total median healthcare costs (€1144 vs €541, P < 0.001) versus matched LA-MPH patients. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data indicate that, among children/adolescents with ADHD in Germany, ATX-indexed patients may require more prescriptions and physician visits, and incur higher total healthcare costs, than matched LA-MPH patients.

Tofacitinib versus Biologic Treatments in Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Who Have Had an Inadequate Response to Nonbiologic DMARDs: Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Objective. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as monotherapy and combined with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) and other novel DMARDs for second-line moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients by means of a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods. MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 1990 and March 2015. Efficacy data based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at 6 months, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events were analyzed by means of Bayesian NMAs. Results. 45 RCTs were identified, the majority of which demonstrated a low risk of bias. Tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) and 10 mg BID monotherapy exhibited comparable efficacy and discontinuation rates due to adverse events versus other monotherapies. Tofacitinib 5 mg BID and 10 mg BID + DMARDs or methotrexate (MTX) were mostly comparable to other combination therapies in terms of efficacy and discontinuation due to adverse events. Conclusion. In most cases, tofacitinib had similar efficacy and discontinuation rates due to adverse events compared to biologic DMARDs.

Economic Burden of HIV Antiretroviral Therapy Adverse Events in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate health care costs associated with medical events identified as antiretroviral therapy (ART)-attributable adverse events (AEs). METHODS: During September 2006 to June 2012, adults with ≥1 HIV International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code (042/V08), ≥1 claim for ART prescription (March 2007-June 2011; index date), and continuous health plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and ≥12 months postindex were included (IMS' PharMetrics Plus Health Plan Claims Database). Patients with events of interest/ART claim during preindex period or with pregnancy/hepatitis C virus diagnosis/hepatitis B virus/cancer/tuberculosis during the study period were excluded. Postindex medical events were defined as first diagnosis code of event with ART claim ≤60 days prior to start of the event. RESULTS: Differences in median total all-cause health care costs observed for diabetes/insulin resistance management (US$14,547 median all-cause health care costs during time periods identified as diabetes/insulin resistance medical events versus US$11,237 without diabetes/insulin resistance events; P=.0021), lipid disorders (US$12,825 versus US$10,033; P=.0004), and renal disorders (US$1389 versus US$0; P<.0001). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Health care costs of ART AEs should be key consideration for payers/providers in HIV management.

Exacerbations, health services utilization, and costs in commercially-insured COPD patients treated with nebulized long-acting ß2-agonists.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective cohort study compared exacerbations, health services utilization, and costs among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients who received nebulized arformoterol or nebulized formoterol therapy. METHODS: Using PharMetrics Plus health plan claims, 417 nebulized long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) users meeting the study inclusion criteria were identified: had ≥2 fills of nebulized arformoterol or nebulized formoterol from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, adhered to using their index drug ≥60% of the days during 1 year post-index, were ≥35 years old and continuously enrolled 180 days pre- and 1 year post-index, and did not use a nebulized LABA or have an asthma diagnosis during the pre-index period. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 274 nebulized arformoterol users and 143 nebulized formoterol users were identified with comparable demographic characteristics. However, significant differences were observed between the two groups in some clinical characteristics at index including comorbidities and use of antibiotics. At 1 year post-index, a lower proportion of nebulized arformoterol users had ≥1 exacerbation compared to nebulized formoterol users (70.4% vs 80.4%; p = 0.028). Among patients with ≥1 hospital admission, COPD-related costs per inpatient stay were significantly lower for nebulized arformoterol users than nebulized formoterol users (median = $9542 vs $14,025; p = 0.009). After controlling for confounders, nebulized arformoterol users had 19% marginally lower risk of exacerbations than nebulized formoterol users (hazard ratio = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.64-1.03; p < 0.084) and 14.4% marginally lower COPD-related total costs at 1 year post-index (p = 0.062), primarily related to fewer hospital readmissions (7.6% vs 12.2%) and lower average costs per readmission stay (median = $7392 vs $18 081; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the choice of nebulized LABA may influence COPD-related exacerbation occurrence and costs. Future studies with larger and more closely matched nebulized arformoterol and nebulized formoterol users are needed to confirm these findings.

Incidence of ischemic colitis in treated, commercially insured hypertensive adults: a cohort study of US health claims data.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic colitis (IC) incidence rates (IRs) among treated hypertensive patients are poorly understood, and existing literature on the subject is sparse. Antihypertensive drugs may raise the risk of developing IC. Novel antihypertensive agents­such as the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren­have not been assessed for IC risk. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate (1) the IRs of probable IC (pIC) in treated hypertensive adults, with a focus on aliskiren-treated patients; (2) the antihypertensive therapies used; and (3) the IRs of pIC in non-hypertensive adults. METHODS: This study selected hypertensive and non-hypertensive patients (N = 2,356,226 each) from a US health plan claims database. pIC was defined as diagnosis of IC within 3 months after colonoscopy, recto-sigmoidoscopy, or colectomy. IRs were calculated per 100,000 person-years (PYs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and stratified by antihypertensive regimen. RESULTS: IRs of pIC in hypertensive and non-hypertensive subjects were 18.6 (95% CI 17.6-19.8) and 4.0 (95% CI 3.4-4.7), respectively. The non-hypertensive cohort consisted of younger patients who may have been less prone to developing IC. The overall (i.e., all antihypertensive regimens combined) monotherapy IR per 100,000 PYs was 17.5 (95% CI 16.2-18.8), the overall dual-combination regimen IR per 100,000 PYs was 19.5 (95% CI 17.37-21.83), and the overall triple-plus combination regimen IR per 100,000 PYs was 27.7 (95% CI 22.72-33.38). CONCLUSION: Study results indicate that the treated hypertensive patients may have a higher risk of pIC compared with non-hypertensive populations. The quantity of antihypertensive agents prescribed may contribute to IC more than treatment duration.

Treatment Frequency and Dosing Interval of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Routine Clinical Practice in the USA.

PURPOSE: To compare treatment patterns of intravitreal ranibizumab and aflibercept for the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in a real-world setting over the first 12 months of treatment. METHODS: A proprietary clinical database was used to identify treatment-naïve patients with nAMD in the USA with claims for ranibizumab or aflibercept between November 1, 2011 and November 30, 2013 and with follow-up of at least 12 months. Patients were considered treatment-naïve if they had no anti-VEGF treatment code for 6 months before the index date. Mean numbers of injections and of non-injection visits to a treating physician were compared between the two treatment cohorts (ranibizumab or aflibercept). In addition, the mean interval between doses was also investigated. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar for those receiving either ranibizumab (n = 5421) or aflibercept (n = 3506) at the index date. The mean (± standard deviation) numbers of injections received by patients treated with ranibizumab (4.9 ± 3.3) or aflibercept (5.2 ± 2.9) were not clinically different. The mean number of non-injection visits was 2.8 ± 2.8 and 2.1 ± 2.5 for ranibizumab and aflibercept, respectively. Mean dosing interval was 51.0 days (± 41.8 days) in patients receiving ranibizumab and 54.1 days (± 36.0 days) in those receiving aflibercept. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses for definition of treatment-naïve, length of follow-up and treatment in the index eye only. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist regarding real-world treatment patterns of aflibercept for the management of nAMD. Our results suggest that, in routine clinical practice, patients receive a comparable number of injections in the first year of treatment with ranibizumab or aflibercept.

Relapse rates in patients with multiple sclerosis switching from interferon to fingolimod or glatiramer acetate: a US claims database study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are unresponsive to, or intolerant of, interferon (IFN) therapy, prompting a switch to other disease-modifying therapies. Clinical outcomes of switching therapy are unknown. This retrospective study assessed differences in relapse rates among patients with MS switching from IFN to fingolimod or glatiramer acetate (GA) in a real-world setting. METHODS: US administrative claims data from the PharMetrics Plus™ database were used to identify patients with MS who switched from IFN to fingolimod or GA between October 1, 2010 and March 31, 2012. Patients were matched 1∶1 using propensity scores within strata (number of pre-index relapses) on demographic (e.g. age and gender) and disease (e.g. timing of pre-index relapse, comorbidities and symptoms) characteristics. A claims-based algorithm was used to identify relapses while patients were persistent with therapy over 360 days post-switch. Differences in both the probability of experiencing a relapse and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) while persistent with therapy were assessed. RESULTS: The matched sample population contained 264 patients (n = 132 in each cohort). Before switching, 33.3% of patients in both cohorts had experienced at least one relapse. During the post-index persistence period, the proportion of patients with at least one relapse was lower in the fingolimod cohort (12.9%) than in the GA cohort (25.0%), and ARRs were lower with fingolimod (0.19) than with GA (0.51). Patients treated with fingolimod had a 59% lower probability of relapse (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.80; p = 0.0091) and 62% fewer relapses per year (rate ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68; p = 0.0013) compared with those treated with GA. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, patients with MS who switched from IFNs to fingolimod were significantly less likely to experience relapses than those who switched to GA.

Persistence with and adherence to fingolimod compared with other disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a retrospective US claims database analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Achieving therapeutic goals in multiple sclerosis (MS) requires strict adherence to treatment schedules. This retrospective study analyzed persistence with, and adherence to, fingolimod compared with injectable/infusible disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with MS. METHODS: Patients in the PharMetrics Plus™ US administrative claims database with at least one prescription for, or administration of, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate (GA), interferon (IFN), or natalizumab (index DMT) between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011 were included. Patients were naïve to index DMT (no claim in the previous 360 days) and had an MS diagnosis code within 360 days of the first index DMT prescription. Outcomes were persistence, risk of discontinuing index DMT (evaluated by a Cox proportional hazards model), adherence (measured using the medication possession ratio [MPR] and proportion of days covered [PDC] in patients with at least two index DMT prescriptions), and the risk of being non-adherent (MPR <80% and PDC <80%, assessed using a logistic regression model). RESULTS: The study included 3750 patients (fingolimod, n = 889; GA, n = 1233; any IFN, n = 1341; natalizumab, n = 287). Discontinuation rates (fingolimod, 27.9%; GA, 39.5%; IFN, 43.7%; natalizumab, 39.5%; all p < 0.001) and risk of discontinuation were significantly higher (hazard ratios vs fingolimod [95% confidence interval]: GA, 1.75 [1.49-2.07]; IFN, 2.01 [1.71-2.37]; natalizumab, 1.53 [1.22-1.91]) for patients receiving other DMTs compared with fingolimod. The risk of being non-adherent was also lower for patients in the fingolimod cohort than the other treatment cohorts, irrespective of whether non-adherence was defined as MPR <80% (p < 0.05 for all) or PDC <80% (p < 0.05 for GA and IFN). LIMITATIONS: As with all studies assessing real-world treatment patterns it is unclear if medications were used as prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, persistence with, and adherence to, oral fingolimod was higher than for injectable and infusible DMTs.

Comparative effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferons or glatiramer acetate for relapse rates in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective US claims database analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Disease-modifying therapies, such as fingolimod, interferon (IFN) and glatiramer acetate (GA), have differing effects on relapse rates in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but little is known about the real-world differences in relapse rates with these treatments. This retrospective study assessed relapse rates in patients with active MS initiating fingolimod, IFN or GA therapy in a real-world setting. METHODS: Using administrative claims data from the US PharMetrics Plus database, we identified previously treated and untreated patients with MS who initiated fingolimod, IFN or GA treatment between 1 October 2010 and 31 March 2011 and had experienced a relapse in the previous year. A claims-based algorithm was used to identify relapses over the persistence period in patients with 540 days of post-index continuous enrolment. A logistic regression model assessed the probability of having at least one relapse and a generalized linear model estimated differences in annualized relapse rates (ARRs). RESULTS: The study enrolled 525 patients (fingolimod, n = 128; combined IFN/GA cohort, n = 397) of the 31,041 initially identified. Similar findings for fingolimod and IFN/GA were observed for the unadjusted proportion of patients experiencing relapses (31.3% vs. 34.0%, respectively; p = 0.5653) and ARRs (0.50 vs. 0.55, respectively) while persistent to treatment. After adjusting for baseline differences, fingolimod was associated with a 52% reduction in the probability of having a relapse (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.84; p = 0.0097) and a 50% reduction in ARR (rate ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; p = 0.0006) compared with IFN/GA. LIMITATIONS: Identification of relapses is based on the claims in the database rather than on a clinical assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, fingolimod was shown to be associated with significantly lower relapse rates than IFN/GA in patients with MS who had a history of relapses.

Work and productivity loss related to herpes zoster.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate absenteeism and presenteeism-related work loss due to herpes zoster (HZ) among working individuals of 50-64 years of age. METHODS: This telephone survey included individuals with ≥1 insurance claim for HZ in the past year in administrative claims data from five US commercial health plans. Demographic information, characteristics of the HZ episode; impact of HZ on activities of daily living (ADL), and work days loss and productivity were surveyed. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 153 of 1654 individuals who were contacted and were eligible for the survey (9.3%). Most had moderate or severe HZ (72.6%). Close to two-thirds reported some impact of HZ on ADL such as shopping, housework/chores, and social engagement. About half (51%) reported missing work due to HZ, and about an equal percentage reported little or much worse productivity than usual due to HZ while at work. On average, age-adjusted absenteeism- and presenteeism-related work loss was estimated at 31.6 hours, and 84.4 hours, respectively, with a combined work loss of 116.0 hours per HZ episode in a working person of 50-64 years of age. Work loss tended to increase with age and the duration and severity of the HZ episode. CONCLUSIONS: The study documents a substantial societal burden of HZ-related work and productivity loss. This is important information to take into consideration, in addition to the direct medical burden, when making policy decisions around vaccine prevention of HZ. LIMITATIONS: The study may potentially be subject to selection bias due to low survey response rate and since only those cases who sought care for a HZ episode were captured. The study may also be subject to respondent recall bias. Finally, since some respondents could still be having the HZ episode at the time of survey, the study may potentially have under-estimated the work and productivity loss.