Cytomegalovirus related hospitalization costs among hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplant recipients treated with maribavir versus investigator-assigned therapy: A US-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections among hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients impose a significant health care resource utilization (HCRU)-related economic burden. Maribavir (MBV), a novel anti-viral therapy (AVT), approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for post-transplant CMV infections refractory (with/without resistance) to conventional AVTs has demonstrated lower hospital length of stay (LOS) versus investigator-assigned therapy (IAT; valgancilovir, ganciclovir, foscarnet, or cidofovir) in a phase 3 trial (SOLSTICE). This study estimated the HCRU costs of MBV versus IAT. METHODS: An economic model was developed to estimate HCRU costs for patients treated with MBV or IAT. Mean per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HCRU costs were calculated using (i) annualized mean hospital LOS in SOLSTICE, and (ii) CMV-related direct costs from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte-Carlo simulations assessed model robustness. RESULTS: Of 352 randomized patients receiving MBV (n = 235) or IAT (n = 117) for 8 weeks in SOLSTICE, 40% had HSCT and 60% had SOT. Mean overall PPPY HCRU costs of overall hospital-LOS were $67,205 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $33,767, $231,275) versus $145,501 (95% CI: $62,064, $589,505) for MBV and IAT groups, respectively. Mean PPPY ICU and non-ICU stay costs were: $32,231 (95% CI: $5,248, $184,524) versus $45,307 (95% CI: $3,957, $481,740) for MBV and IAT groups, and $82,237 (95% CI: $40,397, $156,945) MBV versus $228,329 (95% CI: $94,442, $517,476) for MBV and IAT groups, respectively. MBV demonstrated cost savings in over 99.99% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that Mean PPPY HCRU costs were 29%-64% lower with MBV versus other-AVTs.

Healthcare costs among hemophilia A patients in the United States treated with rurioctocog alfa pegol (FVIII-PEG) or antihemophilic factor (recombinant), FC fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) using real-world data.

AIMS: To compare healthcare costs in patients with non-inhibitor hemophilia A treated with Rurioctocog Alfa Pegol (FVIII-PEG) versus Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), FC Fusion Protein (rFVIIIFc). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Administrative claims data from the Merative MarketScan Commercial (Commerical) and Medicaid (Medicaid) databases were used for these analyses. Males with non-inhibitor hemophilia A treated with FVIII-PEG or rFVIIIFc from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2021 were identified (earliest treatment = index). Patients were required to have continuous database enrollment for six months before and after the index date. Follow-up was variable in length until disenrollment or study end. All-cause and hemophilia-related healthcare costs were reported per-patient per month [PPPM] and the average weekly dose during follow-up was compared between treatment groups. Generalized linear regressions were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted differences in total costs and weekly dosage in the two treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 131 FVIII-PEG (66 Commercial; 65 Medicaid) and 204 rFVIIIFc (111 Commercial; 93 Medicaid) patients were eligible. Mean age was 20.5 and 24.4 for FVIII-PEG and rFVIIIFc in Commercial and 14.9 and 17.5 for FVIII-PEG and rFVIIIFc in Medicaid. PPPM mean (standard deviations [SD]) total healthcare costs in Commercially insured patients were $35,868 [$21,717] for FVIII-PEG vs $40,424 [$25,882] for rFVIIIFc. Costs in Medicaid were $27,495 [$23,243] for FVIII-PEG vs $30,237 [$28,430] for rFVIIIFc. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, the costs for rFVIIIFc (vs FVIII-PEG) were higher by $5,215 in Commercial and $3,895 in Medicaid, but the differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Similar findings were observed for hemophilia-specific healthcare costs. The adjusted mean weekly dose was 6,047 vs 4,892 IU, p = 0.21 for FVIII-PEG vs rFVIIIFc in Commercial and 5,549 vs 7,228 IU, p = 0.07 for FVIII-PEG vs rFVIIIFc in Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare costs and treatment dosing were similar (p > 0.05) for non-inhibitor hemophilia A patients treated with FVIII-PEG and rFVIIIFc.

Evaluation of clinical characteristics, health care resource utilization, and cost outcomes of hemophilia A carriers and noncarriers in the United States: A real-world comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia A is often viewed as a male disease; females are usually considered asymptomatic hemophilia A carriers. However, hemophilia A carriers may experience mild-to-severe bleeding events. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics, health care resource utilization, and costs incurred by hemophilia A carriers compared with a non-hemophilia A carrier female control population in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used data from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Multi-State Medicaid Databases from January 1, 2016, to September 30, 2019. Patients with a hemophilia A carrier diagnosis were matched to a non-hemophilia A carrier female control group in a 1:2 ratio based on sociodemographic characteristics, pregnancy status, and insurance type. Billed annualized bleed rates, health care resource utilization, and annualized costs were evaluated. Generalized linear models compared annualized total costs in the hemophilia A carrier and control groups. RESULTS: After matching, the hemophilia A carrier group included 121 (Commercial) and 55 (Medicaid) patients, matched 1:2 in the control group. Patients in the hemophilia A carrier group (compared with the control group) had numerically higher joint-related health issues (Commercial: 11.6% vs 7.9%; Medicaid: 7.3% vs 4.5%) and lower soft-tissue disorders (Commercial: 13.2% vs 17.4%; Medicaid: 12.7% vs 14.5%). Musculoskeletal pain was higher (33.1% vs 31.0%) and lower (21.8% vs 25.5%) in the Commercial and Medicaid databases, respectively. Billed annualized bleed rates were higher in the hemophilia A carrier group (Commercial: 0.49 vs 0.33; Medicaid: 0.50 vs 0.29). Significantly more patients in the hemophilia A carrier group had minor bleeds (Commercial: 34.7% vs 22.3% [P = 0.001]; Medicaid: 43.6% vs 20.0% [P < 0.001]) and spontaneous bleeds (Commercial: 35.5% vs 21.5%; Medicaid: 47.3% vs 23.6% [P < 0.001 for both]). Outpatient visits represented the majority of health care resource utilization and were higher in the hemophilia A carrier group for all-cause and bleed-related claims; although less frequent, emergency department and inpatient visits followed a similar trend. In the Commercial and Medicaid databases, hemophilia A carriers incurred approximately 2 times higher mean (SD) all-cause health care total costs than patients in the control group (Commercial: $15,345 [21,871] vs $8,358 [11,939] per patient per year [PPPY]; Medicaid: $9,022 [19,461] vs $4,533 [9,532] PPPY). CONCLUSIONS: Hemophilia A carriers experienced more complications and incurred higher costs (resulting from more outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient visits) compared with patients in the control group. These data suggest that hemophilia A carriers have a high disease and economic burden and may benefit from early diagnosis and management to prevent long-term complications. DISCLOSURES: Dr Xing, Dr Bullano, Dr Caicedo, and Mr Farahbakhshian are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., hold Takeda stocks, and have been granted restricted stock shares; Drs Xing and Caicedo received support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., for travel to THSNA 2022, where the data included in this manuscript were presented. Dr Batt received consulting fees from Complete HEOR Solutions (CHEORS) LLC for the protocol development, data analysis, and interpretation of this study; she also holds stocks from Merck and Sanofi. Ms Kuharic is an employee of the University of Illinois at Chicago and has been supported by a Takeda fellowship during the execution of the study. Ms Chakladar and Ms Markan were employees of CHEORS LLC at the time of the study. CHEORS has received funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., for conducting the analysis of this study. This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. The sponsor was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; development and review of the manuscript; and decision to submit manuscript to publication.

Real-world analysis of patients with haemophilia A and haemophilia A carriers in the United States: Demographics, clinical characteristics and costs.

INTRODUCTION: Females with haemophilia A (HA [FHAs]) and HA carriers (HACs) have an increased risk of bleeding and complications compared to the general population. AIM: To examine the characteristics, billed annualised bleed rates (ABRb ), costs and healthcare resource utilisation for males with HA (MHAs), FHAs and HACs in the United States. METHODS: Data were extracted from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases (Commercial and Medicaid) for claims during the index period (July 2016 to September 2018) and analysed across MHAs, FHAs and HACs. RESULTS: Dual diagnosis females (DDFs; both HA and HAC claims) were grouped as a separate cohort. MHAs were generally younger than females (all cohorts) by up to 19 years (Commercial) and 23 years (Medicaid). ABRb  >0 was more frequent in females. Factor VIII claims were higher for MHAs versus female cohorts. Joint-related health issues were reported for 24.4 and 25.6% (Commercial) and 29.3 and 26.6% (Medicaid) of MHAs and FHAs, respectively; lower rates were reported in the other two cohorts. Heavy menstrual bleeding claims occurred for approximately a fifth (Commercial) to a quarter (Medicaid) of female cohorts. All-cause emergency department and inpatient visits in FHAs and DDFs were similar to, or more frequent than, those in MHAs; bleed-related inpatient visits were infrequent. In MHAs (Commercial), mean all-cause total costs ($214,083) were higher than in FHAs ($40,388), HACs ($15,647) and DDFs ($28,320) with similar trends for Medicaid patients. CONCLUSIONS: FHAs and HACs may be undermanaged and undertreated. Further research is needed to fully understand these cohorts' bleeding rates, long-term complications and costs.

A real-world evidence analysis of the impact of switching from factor VIII to emicizumab prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: This study retrospectively compared annualized billed bleed rates (ABRb) in people with hemophilia A (PwHA) without inhibitors who switched from factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis to emicizumab. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A real-world comparison study was performed on the effect of switching from FVIII to emicizumab prophylaxis in male, non-inhibitor patients on ABRb using an all-payer claims database (APCD) dataset from 1 January 2014, to 31 March 2021. The identification period was from 1 November 2017, to 30 September 2020. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-one patients were included with a total of 82 and 45 bleeds in the pre- and post-switch periods, respectively. The average follow-up period pre-switch was 978.37 days (SD 555.03), whereas the average follow-up period post-switch was 522.26 days (SD 191.36). No significant differences in mean ABRb were observed pre-/post-switch (0.25 and 0.20, respectively; P = 0.4456). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate no significant reduction in ABRb, suggesting that switching from FVIII to emicizumab may not deliver incremental benefits to PwHA receiving prophylactic care.

Impact of switching prophylaxis treatment from factor VIII to emicizumab in hemophilia A patients without inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Factor VIII (FVIII) replacement and emicizumab are effective at preventing bleeds in patients with hemophilia A (HA). Though benefits of emicizumab among inhibitor patients with HA (PwHA) are well established, more real-world evidence among non-inhibitor patients is needed. METHODS: Using a United States healthcare claims database, we compared billed annualized bleed rates (ABRb) and the total cost of care (TCC) before and after switching from FVIII prophylaxis to emicizumab among non-inhibitor male PwHA. Bayesian inferences were used to assess the difference in ABRb and TCC per patient per year (PPPY) pre- versus post-prophylaxis switch. RESULTS: We included 101 non-inhibitor male PwHA aged between 3 and 63 years old who switched from FVIII prophylaxis to emicizumab prophylaxis in 2018 or 2019. The ABRb increased from 0.52 to 0.62 (p = 0.83) after switch. The posterior probability of the mean ABRb increasing after the switch was 75.54%. The TCC PPPY increased from $517,143 to $627,005 (p < 0.0001) after switch and the posterior probability of mean costs increasing after the switch was 99.80%. CONCLUSIONS: Personalization of care through the identification of the most appropriate therapy for each patient can optimize clinical and economic outcomes. Future real-world evidence research could help establish the value of prophylactic options in targeted populations such as the non-inhibitor male PwHA.

Evaluating the financial impact of utilizing recombinant porcine factor VIII or recombinant FVIIa for patients with acquired hemophilia A.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the financial impact of utilizing rpFVIII or rFVIIa during a hospital admission for the diagnosis of acquired hemophilia A (AHA) by reviewing the margin between the cost to the hospital for providing care and the amount the hospital is reimbursed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in the US. METHODS: Data source was the Medicare Limited Data Set, which contains claims for hospitalizations, charges, and amounts reimbursed by CMS. Study patients were hospitalized with AHA and treated with rpFVIII and/or rFVIIa between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019. CMS Fiscal Year 2020 Impact Files, with hospital-level cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs), were used to estimate hospital costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to estimate margins at different CCRs. RESULTS: Hospital margins were, on average, positive with use of either rpFVIII or rFVIIa (rpFVIII: $51,548.89; rFVIIa: $35,943.80). Sensitivity analysis results suggest that the use of rpFVIII is similiar, compared with rFVIIa for a large majority of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: While there may be higher reimbursement for rpFVIII hospitalizations, this analysis suggests that the use of rpFVIII, compared to rFVIIa, may have no impact on hospital finances for the majority of hospitals, despite rpFVIII's higher per unit cost.

A real-world study comparing pre-post billed annualized bleed rates and total cost of care among non-inhibitor patients with hemophilia A switching from FVIII prophylaxis to emicizumab.

OBJECTIVE: Factor VIII (FVIII) replacement and emicizumab have demonstrated efficacy for prevention of bleeds among patients with hemophilia A (PwHA) compared to on-demand (OD) use. Evidence investigating clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of non-inhibitor PwHA switching from prophylaxis with FVIII concentrates to emicizumab has not been well-established within large real-world datasets. This study aimed to investigate billed annualized bleed rates (ABRb) and total cost of care (TCC) among non-inhibitor PwHA switching from FVIII-prophylaxis to emicizumab-prophylaxis. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study was conducted using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus, a US administrative claims database. The date of first claim for emicizumab was defined as the index date. OD patients and inhibitor patients were excluded. Bleeds were identified using a list of 535 diagnosis codes. Bayesian models were developed to estimate the probability ABRb worsens and TCC increases after switching to emicizumab. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to test statistical significance of changes in ABRb and TCC after switch. RESULTS: Among the 121 identified patients, the difference in mean ABRb between FVIII-prophylaxis (0.68 [SD = 1.28]) and emicizumab (0.55 [SD = 1.48]) was insignificant (p = .142). The mean annual TCC significantly increased for patients switching from FVIII-prophylaxis ($518,151 [SD = $289,934]) to emicizumab ($652,679 [SD = $340,126]; p < .0001). The Bayesian models estimated a 21.0% probability of the ABRb worsening and a 99.9% probability of increasing TCC after switch. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that in male non-inhibitor PwHA, switching from FVIII prophylaxis to emicizumab incurs substantial cost increase with no significant benefit in ABRb. This evidence may help guide providers, payers, and patients in shared decision-making conversations around best treatment options.

The budget impact of enzyme replacement therapy in type 1 Gaucher disease in the United States.

AIM: Gaucher disease (GD) is a rare autosomal recessive condition. Type 1 GD (GD1) is the most prevalent form of GD in Western countries; enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) is a treatment option for patients with GD1. To understand the economic value of the GD1 ERT velaglucerase alfa, a budget impact model (BIM) was developed from a United States (US) payer perspective. METHODS: We estimated the budget impact of velaglucerase alfa for a 10-million-member US health plan by comparing the annual total costs of therapy between a scenario using current velaglucerase alfa uptake to a projected scenario with increased velaglucerase alfa uptake. Total drug costs for both scenarios were estimated as the sum of the product of the number of eligible patients on each treatment and the annual per-patient cost of each medication. Average per-patient costs for ERTs were calculated by adding the yearly drug acquisition, drug administration, and site-of-care markup costs. The budget impact was measured over years 1-3. RESULTS: An estimated 65 patients would receive velaglucerase alfa treatment in year 1, increasing to 90 patients by year 3. Across analyses, cost savings were realized with velaglucerase alfa compared with imiglucerase ($115,909) and taliglucerase alfa ($80,401). An annual total budget savings of $8.67 million could be realized for a hypothetical 10-million-member US health plan with increased velaglucerase alfa uptake. The per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.0241 across years 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: BIM results show that increased velaglucerase alfa uptake for GD1 treatment is cost-saving for US health plans.

Type 1 Gaucher disease (GD1) is a rare inherited condition. Long-term enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) can reverse and prevent complications. Imiglucerase, taliglucerase alfa, and velaglucerase alfa are 3 ERTs used to treat GD1. In this study, we estimated how increasing uptake of velaglucerase alfa vs. the other ERTs would impact the budget of a hypothetical US healthcare plan. The results show that increased uptake of velaglucerase alfa is cost-saving for US health plans.

The impact of initial statin treatment decisions on cardiovascular outcomes in clinical care settings: estimates using the Archimedes Model.

PURPOSE: Many patients treated for dyslipidemia do not achieve recommended cholesterol goals despite the widespread availability of effective statins. Pharmaceutical claims show a strong tendency for patients to remain on their initially assigned treatment. With computer simulations, the impact of initial statin treatment decisions on medium- and long-term cardiovascular outcomes were examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Archimedes Model, three treatment scenarios were simulated. Patients initiated treatment with simvastatin (20, 40, or 80 mg), atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg), or rosuvastatin (10, 20, or 40 mg), and periodically intensified treatment. The simulated population consisted of 50,025 patients, aged 45-70 years, with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol exceeding goal. The proportion of patients initiating each dose was calibrated to United States pharmacy claims. Patients not reaching goal intensified the dose of their current statin or switched to an appropriate dose of rosuvastatin at rates matching pharmacy claims. Biomarkers and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were tracked for 10 years and several high-risk subpopulations were analyzed. Statin models used biomarker effects from the STELLAR (Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels Compared Across Doses to Rosuvastatin) trial and outcomes data from various trials. RESULTS: Initiating therapy with rosuvastatin reduced MACE more than simvastatin or atorvastatin. The 5- year relative risk of MACE was 0.906 (95% confidence interval: 0.888-0.923; P < 0.001) for initial treatment with atorvastatin rather than simvastatin, 0.831 (0.812-0.850; P < 0.001) for rosuvastatin rather than simvastatin, and 0.918 (0.898-0.938; P < 0.001) for rosuvastatin rather than atorvastatin. Subgroups with higher MACE incidence experienced greater absolute benefit. CONCLUSION: Considering observed rates of treatment intensification, initial treatment choices appear to significantly impact medium- and long-term cardiovascular risk. Patients at high cardiovascular risk are good candidates for aggressive initial therapy.

Adherence to single-pill combination versus multiple-pill combination lipid-modifying therapy among patients with mixed dyslipidemia in a managed care population.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal adherence to lipid-lowering therapies is associated with and potentially contributes to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Single-pill combination (SPC) lipid-modifying therapies may improve patient adherence due to decreased pill burden and increased convenience for the patient. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to SPC versus multi-pill combination (MPC) lipid-modifying medications. METHODS: This retrospective study used pharmacy and medical claims and laboratory result data from a national managed care dataset to evaluate patients who were newly prescribed simvastatin plus ezetimibe, simvastatin plus niacin, and lovastatin plus niacin either as SPC or MPC. Patients were considered adherent to therapy if they had a proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 0.80. RESULTS: The mean PDC was 0.76 and 0.70 in the first 3 months of therapy, 0.54 and 0.45 in the second 3 months, and 0.50 and 0.41 for the remaining 30 months of follow-up for the SPC and MPC groups, respectively. SPC patients were 32% (OR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.27-1.36; P < 0.01) more likely to be adherent to treatment than MPC patients. CONCLUSION: Adherence was significantly higher among patients receiving SPC than MPC. Although only associations and not temporality were assessed due to the observational design of this study, the use of SPC may be a successful method for improving adherence in a real-world setting.

Medical and cost burden of atherosclerosis among patients treated in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: This investigation estimated medical costs attributable to treatment of patients diagnosed with atherosclerosis in routine US clinical practice. METHODS: Using Medstat MarketScan claims data, direct costs of care and rates of cardiovascular (CV) events (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization) were examined for patients≥18 years of age with and without a diagnostic code for atherosclerosis from 1/1/2002 through 12/31/2004. Patients with an atherosclerosis ICD-9 code who had no history of CV events in the preceding 12 months (n=75,469) were evaluated. A comparison cohort (n=238,702) was matched on age, gender, geographic region, enrollment time period, and Charlson comorbidity index to estimate incremental costs attributable to atherosclerosis. Differences between patient groups were tested for CV event rates per 1,000 patients and monthly costs for 6 and 12 months before and after diagnosis. RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 58 years, 52% men, and a comorbidity index of 0.49. Patients diagnosed with atherosclerosis had significantly higher (p<0.001) rates of CV events (240/1000) after diagnosis, compared with patients without atherosclerosis (32/1000). Mean direct cost of care for patients diagnosed with atherosclerosis was $579/month for 12 months before and $1,074/month for 12 months after diagnosis, an 85% increase. Change in mean annual costs pre/post-index date was $5,232 ($436/month) higher among patients with than those without atherosclerosis (p<0.001). LIMITATIONS: The study population was restricted to patients with diagnosed clinical atherosclerosis based on specific ICD-9 codes. Matching of the patient cohorts was based on observed characteristics and other unobserved differences may exist. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diagnosed atherosclerosis incur significant clinical and economic burden, indicating a need for earlier diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerosis to help in reducing this burden.

Therapy modifications and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment rates associated with the initiation of generic simvastatin.

OBJECTIVE: The availability of generic simvastatin has changed the relative cost structure within the statin marketplace and has been associated with third-party payer changes to formularies and statin utilization policies. The current study examines simvastatin therapy modification patterns and associated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment rates. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study utilized administrative claims linked to laboratory result data from a national health plan. Patients newly initiated on generic simvastatin from January 2007 to March 2008 were identified. National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) risk categories and goal LDL-C targets were assigned. Simvastatin dose titrations and switches to other statins were described, as were changes in LDL-C values and NCEP ATP III goal attainment rates both before and after therapy modifications. RESULTS: Of the 1654 patients newly initiated on simvastatin, 84% had no simvastatin therapy modification in the >1-year follow-up period. For patients with no therapy modification, 54.4% did not achieve their LDL-C NCEP ATP III goal at their first lipid panel and goal attainment was strongly associated with the level of cardiovascular risk (goal attainment rate = 75.1%, 51.7%, and 28.6% for low-, moderate- and high-risk categories, respectively). Of patients not achieving NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals (n = 885), 85.4% had no therapy modification. Goal was achieved after therapy modification in 36% (dose titration) and 42% (switchers); high-risk patients goal attainment rates were 23% and 38%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: LIMITATIONS of the study include the observational design, use of an administrative claims database to assess cardiovascular risk, relatively short follow-up time (slightly more than 1 year) and the lack of assessment of adherence to therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the majority of patients initiated on generic simvastatin stayed on their initial starting dose regardless of NCEP ATP III goal attainment status. The findings of low rates of therapy modification irrespective of baseline CV risk and associated low rates of goal attainment, especially in high risk patients treated with simvastatin, indicate an opportunity to encourage clinical decision making based on the needs of the individual patient.

Managing dyslipidemia in primary care with restricted access to lipid-modifying therapy.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with dyslipidemia do not achieve goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The barriers to achieving goal include inadequate assessment of cardiovascular risk status, medication cost, formulary restrictions, patient lack of adherence, and inadequate counseling time. Removing barriers may improve goal attainment and reduce the risk for cardiovascular events. OBJECTIVE: To identify opportunities to improve dyslipidemia management in primary care by examining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in patients with unrestricted or restricted access to lipid-modifying therapy. METHOD: A total of 5936 adult patients from a primary care practice with a low-density lipoprotein measurement were categorized by coronary heart disease risk into 1 of 4 lipid-modifying therapy groups: unrestricted (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin monotherapy); restricted (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, or simvastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination); other (lipid-modifying combination statin therapy or a nonstatin lipid-modifying therapy); and no lipid-modifying therapy. The primary outcome was low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment by lipid-modifying therapy group. Logistic regression identified associated demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: In this cohort, 78.1% of the patients achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal levels. Overall goal attainment rates were lower in the high and very high coronary heart disease risk categories, at 52.6% and 31.6%, respectively. For patients at elevated coronary heart disease risk (high or very high), the rates of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment were 14 to 16 percentage points higher for patients receiving restricted lipid-modifying therapy compared with patients receiving unrestricted lipid-modifying therapy (high coronary heart disease risk: 68% vs 52%, respectively; very high coronary heart disease risk: 42% vs 28%, respectively). Increasing age, male sex, and use of restricted lipid-modifying therapy were significantly associated with improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment. Of the 1298 patients who were not at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal, 54.1% were not receiving any lipid-modifying therapy. For each coronary heart disease risk category, there was a significantly higher percent utilization of unrestricted lipid-modifying therapy compared with restricted lipid-modifying therapy (P <.001). CONCLUSION: A significant number of patients at elevated risk for coronary heart disease remain untreated or have low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels above target. Removing barriers to the use of restricted lipid-modifying agents in patients at risk for heart disease provides an opportunity to improve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

Knowledge of heart disease risk among SHIELD respondents with dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Respondents in the US Study to Help Improve Early evaluation and management of risk factors Leading to Diabetes (SHIELD) reported whether they had a diagnosis of dyslipidemia, were taking prescription dyslipidemia medication, and knew their heart disease risk (low, moderate, high, or do not know). We assessed whether respondents who reported a diagnosis of dyslipidemia with or without lipid-modifying treatment knew their heart disease risk and whether it correlated with National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on self-report of risk factors, ATP III high risk was defined as diagnosis of heart disease/heart attack, narrow/blocked arteries, stroke, or diabetes; moderate risk included >or=2 risk factors (ie, men aged >45 years, women aged >55 years, hypertension, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, current smoking, and family history of CHD); and low risk included <2 risk factors. Of 7629 respondents with dyslipidemia, 35% reported not taking cholesterol medication, and 29% reported not knowing their heart disease risk. For respondents treated for dyslipidemia, 27% reported not knowing their risk, and of the 73% who reported knowing, 24% to 35% reported the same risk level as ATP III risk. For respondents with untreated dyslipidemia, 33% reported not knowing their risk, and of the 67% who reported knowing, 20% to 37% reported the same risk as ATP III risk. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of respondents with dyslipidemia did not know their heart disease risk. Among those who reported knowing their risk level, >60% of respondents did not classify themselves at the same ATP III-defined risk level. There is a gap in understanding and awareness of heart disease risk among respondents with dyslipidemia regardless of treatment status.

Atherosclerosis profile and incidence of cardiovascular events: a population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerosis is a chronic progressive disease often presenting as clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. This study evaluated the characteristics of individuals with a diagnosis of atherosclerosis and estimated the incidence of CVD events to assist in the early identification of high-risk individuals. METHODS: Respondents to the US SHIELD baseline survey were followed for 2 years to observe incident self-reported CVD. Respondents had subclinical atherosclerosis if they reported a diagnosis of narrow or blocked arteries/carotid artery disease without a past clinical CVD event (heart attack, stroke or revascularization). Characteristics of those with atherosclerosis and incident CVD were compared with those who did not report atherosclerosis at baseline but had CVD in the following 2 years using chi-square tests. Logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with atherosclerosis and incident events. RESULTS: Of 17,640 respondents, 488 (2.8%) reported having subclinical atherosclerosis at baseline. Subclinical atherosclerosis was associated with age, male gender, dyslipidemia, circulation problems, hypertension, past smoker, and a cholesterol test in past year (OR = 2.2) [all p < 0.05]. Incident CVD was twice as high in respondents with subclinical atherosclerosis (25.8%) as in those without atherosclerosis or clinical CVD (12.2%). In individuals with subclinical atherosclerosis, men (RR = 1.77, p = 0.050) and individuals with circulation problems (RR = 2.36, p = 0.003) were at greatest risk of experiencing CVD events in the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: Self-report of subclinical atherosclerosis identified an extremely high-risk group with a >25% risk of a CVD event in the next 2 years. These characteristics may be useful for identifying individuals for more aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic efforts.

Prevalence and humanistic impact of potential misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder among patients with major depressive disorder in a commercially insured population.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bipolar disorder typically present to physicians in the depressed rather than the manic or hypomanic phase of illness. Because the depressive episodes in bipolar disorder may be indistinguishable from those in major depressive disorder (MDD), misdiagnosis may occur. OBJECTIVES: To estimate from administrative claims data and a telephone survey the prevalence of potential misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder among patients with MDD and the humanistic (health-related quality of life [HRQOL] and disability) effects associated with misdiagnosis in a managed care setting. METHODS: Administrative claims data were used to identify patients with medical claims for MDD from a database of 9 million members of commercial health plans from 3 U.S. regions. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) adults aged 18 years or older; (b) at least 2 medical claims, including a primary or secondary diagnosis of MDD: ICD-9-CM codes 296.2x (MDD, single episode), 296.3x (MDD, recurrent episode), or 311 (depressive disorder, not classified elsewhere) during an identification period from January 1, 2000, through March 31, 2004 (study intake period); (c) at least 12 months of pre-index and 12 months of post-index plan eligibility; and (d) active enrollment through March 31, 2005. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for MDD during the identification period. Patients with ICD-9-CM codes for bipolar disorder at any time throughout the study period (January 1, 2000, through March 31, 2005) were excluded from this cohort. This cohort was targeted for a telephone survey that was conducted from August 1 through October 30, 2006. From the telephone survey sampling frame of 5,777, a total of 1,360 interviews were completed for a response rate of 23.5%. Respondents were screened for potential bipolar disorder using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). The Medical Outcomes 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12), Version 2, a widely used and validated instrument that assesses health-related functioning, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), which measures depression-related disability, were administered to a convenience subsample of 112 survey respondents to collect HRQOL and disability information, respectively. RESULTS: Of 1,360 adult patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of MDD but without a medical claim for diagnosis of bipolar disorder, 94 (6.9%) screened positive for bipolar disorder on the MDQ. More patients with a positive screen for bipolar disorder reported lifetime histories of obsessive compulsive disorder (24.5% vs. 8.2%, P<0.001), psychotic disorders or hallucinations (9.6% vs. 2.4%, P<0.001), suicidal ideation (61.7% vs. 29.4%, P<0.001), and drug abuse (34.0% vs. 11.1%, P<0.001) than did patients with a negative screen for bipolar disorder. In the subgroup of patients who completed the SF-12 and SDS, patients with a positive screen for bipolar disorder (n=33) had lower scores (i.e., greater impairment) on the social functioning, role emotional, and overall mental component summary scales of the SF-12 than did patients with a negative screen for bipolar disorder (n=79, P<0.001), but did not significantly differ on the physical component summary scale. Patients with a positive screen for bipolar disorder on the MDQ were more likely than patients who screened MDQ-negative to report severe depression-related impairment (scores of 7 and higher on the SDS scale) with work life (54.5% vs. 24.1%, respectively, P=0.002), social life (66.7% vs. 39.2%, P=0.008), and family life (66.7% vs. 34.2%, P=0.002) on the SDS. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients carrying medical claims for a diagnosis of MDD in their administrative claims data, approximately 7% screened positive for bipolar disorder on a validated self-report assessment instrument. Patients with MDD who screened positive for bipolar disorder reported poorer HRQOL and disability scores than did patients with MDD who screened MDQ-negative. These findings may encourage interventions for appropriate screening, diagnosis, and management of potentially misdiagnosed bipolar disorder patients.

LDL-C goal attainment among patients newly diagnosed with coronary heart disease or diabetes in a commercial HMO.

BACKGROUND: Patients beginning treatment with lipid-modifying drugs should have their serum lipid levels monitored and, if necessary, their drug therapy adjusted to reach and maintain their treatment goals. Patients with coronary heart disease or diabetes are at high risk of coronary events and are particularly important target groups for monitoring and dose adjustment of lipid-modifying drug therapy. OBJECTIVE: to determine from administrative claims the rates of lipid testing, treatment with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering drug therapy, and LDL-C goal attainment defined as LDL-C < 100 mg per DL in the time period after a new diagnosis of coronary heart disease or diabetes among patients who had not previously received lipid-modifying drug therapy. METHODS: an index date was defined by a new diagnosis of coronary heart disease or diabetes between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000, preceded by a 12-month pre-index period without lipid-modifying drug treatment in a commercial health maintenance organization (HMO) database for the southeastern united states. coronary heart disease (CHD) was defined by a diagnosis code for myocardial infarction (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 410.xx) or angina/ischemic heart disease (411.xx), or a procedural code for angioplasty (icd-9-cM 36.1x-36.3x; Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 92980-92984, 92995-92996) or coronary artery bypass graft (icd-9-cM 36.01, 36.02, 36.05, 36.09; CPT 33510-33545). diabetes was identified either by an icd-9-cM diagnosis code 250.xx or a pharmacy claim for an antihyperglycemic medication. Patients were followed in the post-index period until loss of eligibility or a maximum of 42 months (mean = 26 months, range=12-42 months). We calculated the proportion of patients with lipids treated and at LDL-C goal (defined as V < 100 mg per DL) in months 1-6 after the index date. among those not at goal in months 1-6, we estimated the proportion treated to goal in months 7-12 and in month 7 to the end of the post-index period. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of goal attainment in months 7-12 and in month 7 to the end of the post-index period among patients who were not at goal in months 1-6. RESULTS: Laboratory lipid values were available for 4,676 (40.4%) of 11,552 patients who had not previously received lipid-modifying drug therapy in months 1-6 after the index date, of whom 72.7% (n = 3,400) had an LDL-C > or =100 mg per DL (63.5% for CHD and 76.7% for diabetes). Of 1,245 patients tested and treated with lipid-modifying therapy in months 1-6, 485 (39.0%) were at LDL-C goal in months 1-6 (48.2% of CHD and 28.8% of diabetes patients), and 760 (61.0%) were not at LDL-C goal (51.8% of those with CHD and 71.2% of those with diabetes). Goal attainment (cumulative) among those treated improved to 50.1% in months 7-12 and 58.4% in month 7 to the end of the post-index period. Patients not attaining goal in months 1-6, and who continued treatment in months 7-12 and month 13 to the end of the post-index period, had a 48.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.0%-53.6%) predicted probability of attaining their goals. The odds of goal attainment in month 7 to the end of post-index period (among those not at goal in months 1-6) were greater for (a) age e 65 years (odds ratio [or] = 2.45, 95% CI, 1.62-3.72), (b) history of hypertension (or = 1.91, 95% CI, 1.20-3.03), (c) greater number of distinct medications (or = 1.07, 95% CI, 1.01-1.14 per additional medication), (d) months of observation post-index (or = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08 per additional month), and (e) months supply of lipid-modifying medication (or = 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01-1.07 per additional month), and were lower for LDL-C > or = 130 mg per DL in months 1-6 (or = 0.53, 95% CI, 0.35-0.82) and a history of dyslipidemia (or = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). The odds of LDL-C goal attainment were not affected by diagnosis (CHD vs. diabetes), gender, statin titration (34% of patients), lipid-modifying drug switching (39% of patients), or treatment with a high-potency LDL-C-lowering drug dosage (one of sufficient strength to reduce LDL-C by > 40%). CONCLUSION: of patients receiving lipid testing and lipid drug treatment in the 6 months after an initial diagnosis of CHD or diabetes, 61% were not at the LDL-C goal of < 100 mg per DL. Among those not at LDL-C goal in the first 6 months of treatment, only about half who continued treatment subsequently attained their LDL-C goal, despite statin titration or switching of their lipid-modifying drug therapy.

Effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing lipid levels and achieving low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol goals in a usual care setting.

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing lipid levels and achieving low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals in patients treated in a usual care setting was studied. METHODS: Electronic medical and pharmacy administrative claims from a western U.S. health plan with approximately 8 million covered members were extracted and used in this retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Patients age 18 years or older who were newly initiated on rosuvastatin or atorvastatin between August 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004, were included. Propensity-score matching on baseline characteristics was used to minimize selection bias between groups. Administrative claims and medical records were used to assign patients a cardiovascular risk status and corresponding LDL cholesterol goal using guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). Changes in lipid levels and attainment rates of goal LDL cholesterol levels were estimated after accounting for baseline covariates using regression techniques. RESULTS: A total of 453 patients met the study criteria. The mean dose of rosuvastatin was 11 mg compared with 15 mg for atorvastatin. After adjusting for baseline differences between groups, patients receiving rosuvastatin had significantly greater mean percent reductions in LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and non-high-density-lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol than did patients receiving atorvastatin (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences were found in HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels between groups. Attainment rates for NCEP LDL cholesterol goals were significantly higher in patients receiving rosuvastatin. CONCLUSION: Patients treated in a usual care setting with rosuvastatin had significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels compared with those receiving atorvastatin. Patients receiving rosuvastatin were more likely to attain NCEP LDL cholesterol goals compared with patients treated with atorvastatin.