Incremental burden of relapse in patients with major depressive disorder: a real-world, retrospective cohort study using claims data.

BACKGROUND: Relapse is common in major depressive disorder (MDD). In this study, we evaluated the incremental health care burden of relapse in patients with MDD. METHODS: This real-world retrospective cohort study used administrative medical and pharmacy claims data to identify commercially insured adult patients in the United States diagnosed with MDD who initiated a new antidepressant between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. All-cause health care resource utilization, total costs, and medication adherence were evaluated in two cohorts: patients with and patients without relapse. Relapse was defined as suicide attempts, psychiatric hospitalization, mental health-related emergency department (ED) visit, use of electroconvulsive therapy, or reinitiation of treatment after a gap ≥6 months. RESULTS: The study population included 14,186 patients (7093 baseline-matched patients per cohort). The mean follow-up period was 27.5 and 26.0 months for patients with and patients without relapse, respectively. Patients with relapse had significantly higher rates of hospitalization (16.6% vs 8.5%; p < .0001) and ED visits (54.8% vs 34.7%; p < .0001) than patients without relapse. The total costs for patients with relapse were significantly higher ($12,594 vs $10,445;  p < .0001). Patients with relapse were also less adherent to antidepressants (mean proportion of days covered, 0.43 vs 0.49; p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Relapse of MDD was associated with increased total costs and health care utilization and lower adherence to antidepressants. Reducing the risk of relapse may result in a reduction of the associated health care burden; however, findings may only be generalizable to patients with commercial insurance.

Incremental burden of comorbid major depressive disorder in patients with type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease: a retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: The estimated prevalence of comorbid major depressive disorder (. MDD) is 11% in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and 15-20% in those with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Comorbid MDD continues to be a significant source of economic burden to the healthcare system. METHODS: We assessed the incremental healthcare burden of comorbid MDD in patients with T2D or CVD. This real-world, retrospective, administrative claims study analyzed commercially insured adults with T2D or CVD diagnosed on at least 2 separate claims within 12 months of each other (between January 1, 2011, and September 30, 2018). CVD included congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, coronary heart disease, and cerebrovascular disease. The study compared patients with and without MDD with either T2D or CVD. Study assessments included all-cause healthcare resource utilization (proportion of patients with hospitalization, emergency department [ED] visits, and outpatient visits) and cost. RESULTS: Patients were matched by propensity score for demographics and baseline characteristics, resulting in similar baseline characteristics for the respective subcohorts. After matching, 22,892 patients with T2D (11,446 each with and without MDD) and 28,298 patients with CVD (14,149 each with and without MDD) were included. At follow-up, patients with T2D and MDD had significantly higher rates of hospitalization (26.1% vs 17.4%, P < 0.0001) and ED visits (55.3% vs 43.0%, P < 0.0001) than those observed in patients without MDD. The total cost for patients with T2D and MDD at follow-up was significantly higher than for those without MDD ($16,511 vs $11,550, P < 0.0001). Similarly, at follow-up, patients with CVD and MDD had significantly higher rates of hospitalization (45.4% vs 34.1%, P < 0.0001) and ED visits (66.5% vs 55.4%, P < 0.0001) than those observed in patients without MDD. Total cost at follow-up for patients with CVD and MDD was significantly higher than for those without MDD ($25,546 vs $18,041, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with either T2D or CVD and comorbid MDD have higher total all-cause healthcare utilization and cost than similar patients without MDD. Study findings reinforce the need for appropriate management of MDD in patients with these comorbid diseases, which in turn may result in cost reductions for payers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Real-world assessment of concomitant opioid utilization and associated trends in patients with migraine.

Migraine is a debilitating condition that affects approximately 16% of adults and is the fifth leading cause of emergency department visits in the United States. There are several treatment options for migraines; opioids are frequently prescribed. Results from a recent study showed that more than half of the patients with chronic migraine and a third of the patients with episodic migraine received an opioid prescription in the past year. The American Headache Society recognizes the magnitude of this issue and is working to educate providers on the danger of prescribing opioids in the migraine population The objective of this article is to assess the utilization trends of prescription opioid products and evaluate the impact of opioid utilization on healthcare costs in this patient population. This retrospective claims database analysis used real-world medical claims from multiple health plans. The study period was from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2017. Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and continuously enrolled in the study period for at least 3 years. Patients were included in the migraine cohort if they had any diagnosis of migraine headache during the study period, while patients without a headache related diagnosis were included in the control cohort. Control patients were propensity matched 1:1 to migraine patients. Discrete (count) data are represented by frequencies and percentages. Continuous results are presented as means, medians, and standard deviations. In the study, 107,216 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 53,608 assigned to each cohort. In the migraine and control cohorts, respectively, 28% and 11% were prescribed opioids. In both cohorts, a majority of the patients were female (81.8%). In both cohorts, opioid use was associated with higher total costs compared with patients who were not prescribed opioids: $82,007 for 200 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day or more versus $19,792 for no opioid in patients with migraine; and $54,200 for 200 MME/day or more versus $12,060 for no opioid use in control patients; P <.0001. Patients with more than 2 comorbidities who were prescribed opioids had higher costs than patients with more than 2 comorbidities who were not prescribed opioids and patients with less than 2 comorbidities who were prescribed opioids ($65,980, $32,152, and $35,964, respectively, for patients with migraine, and $52,883, $24,641, and $35,748, respectively, for control patients; P <.0001). Patients with migraine have more than twice the healthcare costs as patients without migraines. The additional increase in healthcare costs in patients with migraine who use opioids for treatment and/or have 2 or more comorbidities is significant. Control of the pain associated with migraine, specifically among those with multiple comorbid conditions, may contribute to substantial reductions in healthcare costs.

Modeling Episode-Based Payments for Cancer Using Commercial Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Innovative health care reimbursement models are gaining attention as a way to move away from a payment system that rewards quantity of service over quality of care. One such alternative payment model is episode-based payment, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM) being piloted by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation. OBJECTIVE: To adapt the OCM methodology to a commercially insured population to understand the challenges and potential implications of implementing an episode-based payment model in a commercial health plan. METHODS: Administrative claims databases from 3 regional commercial health plans were used to identify continually eligible patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Episode triggers were identified using the OCM methodology. In calculating the episode-based payments, adjustments to the OCM methodology were necessary to adapt the methodology to a commercial population, since not all Medicare data elements used in the OCM algorithm are available in commercial claims data. RESULTS: The adapted OCM-like model was applied to data from 39,967 patients with 1 of 4 cancer types. Approximately 13% of patients had at least 1 episode per year and the average number of episodes per patient per year for patients with at least 1 episode ranged from 1.42 for patients with melanoma to 1.94 for patients with CML. The percentage of total annual costs included in episodes was 49%, 60%, 34%, and 52% for breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, and CML, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As health care financing shifts to alternative payment models, insurers may look to adopt episode-based payments for oncology, similar to the OCM. This study shows that implementing an OCM-like model in a commercial health plan is feasible but will require adjustments to the OCM algorithm to make it implementable and applicable to populations beyond Medicare. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by Magellan Rx Management with funding contributed by Novartis. Zacker is an employee of Novartis. The other authors are employed by Magellan Rx Management and have nothing to disclose.

Real-World Health Plan Data Analysis: Key Trends in Medication Adherence and Overall Costs in Patients with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) is essential to achieve long-term viral suppression in patients with HIV-1. Single-tablet regimens (STRs) have improved adherence and decreased health care costs and hospitalizations, but previous study results suggest that the relationship between ART adherence and health care costs and utilization is complex. OBJECTIVE: To assess ART adherence trends in patients with HIV-1 to determine if differences in utilization, demographics, and overall costs exist among patients with varying levels of medication adherence. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed medical and pharmacy claims data from an administrative claims database between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2016, for Medicaid or commercially insured patients continuously enrolled for ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 15 months after the index date (date of first medical claim with an HIV diagnosis or pharmacy claim for HIV ART medication between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2014). Qualifying patients were aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of HIV-1 infection or at least 1 pharmacy claim for HIV ART at index and at least 2 pharmacy claims during the follow-up period. Patients were categorized on the basis of adherence as measured by proportion of days covered (PDC; ≥ 95%, highly adherent; < 95%, less adherent) and treatment with an STR or multiple-tablet regimen (MTR). Commercially insured patients were stratified by duration of follow-up data (< 3 or ≥ 3 years). There were not enough Medicaid patients for follow-up analysis. Outcomes of interest were ART adherence and annual medical and pharmacy utilization and costs. Descriptive statistics were generated, and health care resource utilization and costs were reported as annual averages. Chi-square and t-tests were used to examine differences between the cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 332 Medicaid patients and 1,698 patients insured commercially met inclusion criteria. Adherence to ART medication (mean PDC) during the first 15 months was lower in Medicaid patients (65%) versus commercial patients (79%; P < 0.0001). Patients treated with STRs comprised 47% and 37% of patients in the < 3-year and ≥ 3-year follow-up cohorts, respectively. More STR patients achieved ≥95% adherence than MTR patients (< 3-year follow-up, 53% vs. 39%; ≥ 3-year follow-up, 61% vs. 45%; P < 0.001). In both follow-up cohorts, less adherent patients had higher mean annual medical costs, and results were significant for patients with ≥ 3-year follow-up ($8,224 vs. $3,097; P = 0.0007). These results were largely driven by savings in mean annual inpatient costs among the highly adherent patients in both cohorts (< 3-year follow-up, -$2,525 [P = 0.0003]; ≥ 3-year follow-up, -$815 [P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients on STRs were more adherent than patients on MTRs regardless of length of follow-up. Better adherence was associated with significant inpatient cost savings. The relationship between adherence and total medical costs is nuanced depending on the duration of follow-up. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by ViiV Healthcare, which participated in protocol development, the analysis plan, and interpretation of results but did not have final approval on the decision to publish. Kangethe, Polson, Lord, and Evangelatos are employees of Magellan Rx Management, which was contracted by ViiV Healthcare to conduct the research for this study. Oglesby is an employee of ViiV Healthcare and owns stock in GlaxoSmithKline. Data from this study were previously presented at AMCP Nexus; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Hyperkalemia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia (HK) is a concern for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure (HF), and for those receiving treatments that inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAASi). An analysis of 1.7 million medical records of patients in the United States revealed that among individuals with more than 2 potassium values during 2007 to 2012, HK was detected in 34.6% of patients with CKD and 30.0% of patients with HF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of HK and use of RAASi therapies at optimal and suboptimal doses in patients with CKD and/or HF with health care resource utilization and overall cost of care in a diverse cohort of commercially insured patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using medical and pharmacy claims from multiple regional health plans. Qualifying patients were ≥ 18 years old, continuously enrolled for 6 months before and throughout the study period (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015) and had an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM diagnosis code of CKD and/or HF. Health care resource utilization, including hospital visits, length of stay, office visits, and associated medical and pharmacy costs, were assessed according to the 3 cohorts (CKD alone, HF alone, and concomitant CKD and HF). For the 3 cohorts, the results were also compared between patients with and without HK and between patients with and without RAASi use at optimal and suboptimal doses. Generalized linear models were used to further examine the predictors of medical and overall costs. RESULTS: In this study, 15,999 patients met inclusion criteria. Among patients using RAASi therapy, 26.8% received the optimal dose. Optimal dosing of RAASi was associated with decreased median outpatient office visits (8, 10, and 15, respectively, for patients with CKD, HF, and both CKD and HF) compared with suboptimal dosing of RAASi (12, 15, and 23, respectively). Similarly, optimal dosing of RAASi was associated with decreased overall median medical costs ($2,092, $4,144, and $7,762, respectively, for patients with CKD, HF, and both CKD and HF) compared with suboptimal dosing of RAASi ($3,121, $8,289, and $12,749, respectively). Patients with CKD, HF, or both CKD and HF, all in combination with HK, had higher overall costs, compared with those without HK. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this real-world analysis suggest that HK and suboptimal dosing of RAASI were associated with a median increase in outpatient office visits as well as increased overall medical costs among patients with CKD and/or HF. This evaluation of median costs suggests effective HK management may potentially reduce costs in patients with CKD and/or HF, including those currently receiving RAASi therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by Magellan Rx Management and funded by Relypsa. Brenner, Alvarez, and Oestreicher were employed by Relypsa during the development of this study and the writing of this manuscript. Polson, Lord, Kangethe, Speicher, and Farnum are employees of Magellan Rx Management, which received funding from Relypsa for conducting the retrospective study and writing the manuscript. Study concept and design were contributed by Lord, Polson, Brenner, Alvarez, and Oestreicher. Data collection and interpretation were performed by Polson and Kangethe, with assistance from Lord. The manuscript was written by Farnum, with assistance from Kangethe and Speicher and revised by all authors.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Hyperkalemia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia (HK) is a concern for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure (HF), and for those receiving treatments that inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAASi). An analysis of 1.7 million medical records of patients in the United States revealed that among individuals with more than 2 potassium values during 2007 to 2012, HK was detected in 34.6% of patients with CKD and 30.0% of patients with HF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of HK and use of RAASi therapies at optimal and suboptimal doses in patients with CKD and/or HF with health care resource utilization and overall cost of care in a diverse cohort of commercially insured patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using medical and pharmacy claims from multiple regional health plans. Qualifying patients were ≥ 18 years old, continuously enrolled for 6 months before and throughout the study period (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015) and had an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM diagnosis code of CKD and/or HF. Health care resource utilization, including hospital visits, length of stay, office visits, and associated medical and pharmacy costs, were assessed according to the 3 cohorts (CKD alone, HF alone, and concomitant CKD and HF). For the 3 cohorts, the results were also compared between patients with and without HK and between patients with and without RAASi use at optimal and suboptimal doses. Generalized linear models were used to further examine the predictors of medical and overall costs. RESULTS: In this study, 15,999 patients met inclusion criteria. Among patients using RAASi therapy, 26.8% received the optimal dose. Optimal dosing of RAASi was associated with decreased median outpatient office visits (8, 10, and 15, respectively, for patients with CKD, HF, and both CKD and HF) compared with suboptimal dosing of RAASi (12, 15, and 23, respectively). Similarly, optimal dosing of RAASi was associated with decreased overall median medical costs ($2,092, $4,144, and $7,762, respectively, for patients with CKD, HF, and both CKD and HF) compared with suboptimal dosing of RAASi ($3,121, $8,289, and $12,749, respectively). Patients with CKD, HF, or both CKD and HF, all in combination with HK, had higher overall costs, compared with those without HK. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this real-world analysis suggest that HK and suboptimal dosing of RAASI were associated with a median increase in outpatient office visits as well as increased overall medical costs among patients with CKD and/or HF. This evaluation of median costs suggests effective HK management may potentially reduce costs in patients with CKD and/or HF, including those currently receiving RAASi therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by Magellan Rx Management and funded by Relypsa. Brenner, Alvarez, and Oestreicher were employed by Relypsa during the development of this study and the writing of this manuscript. Polson, Lord, Kangethe, Speicher, and Farnum are employees of Magellan Rx Management, which received funding from Relypsa for conducting the retrospective study and writing the manuscript. Study concept and design were contributed by Lord, Polson, Brenner, Alvarez, and Oestreicher. Data collection and interpretation were performed by Polson and Kangethe, with assistance from Lord. The manuscript was written by Farnum, with assistance from Kangethe and Speicher and revised by all authors.

Comparing the validity of the payment card and structured haggling willingness to pay methods: The case of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the theoretical validity of two willingness-to-pay (WTP) methods, the commonly used payment card (PC) and the recently developed structured haggling (SH), for estimating the potential benefits of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya. METHODS: A convenience sample of adult residents from a rural county in Kenya (Kiambu), with no history of diabetes, was randomly assigned to one of two WTP methods, PC or SH, using structured face-to-face interviews from December 2011 to February 2012. RESULTS: A total of 376 respondents completed the interviews using PC (n = 185) or SH (n = 191). More than 95% of respondents were willing to pay something for program access. The study showed that both methods were feasible in rural Kenya. SH resulted in a higher annual mean WTP than PC, Ksh504.05 (US$7.25) versus Ksh619.95 (US$5.90), respectively (p < 0.01). Based on theory, it was hypothesized that certain predisposing factors would result in greater WTP. Greater socio-economic status (measured using income proxies) resulted in greater unconditional WTP for both the PC and SH groups (t-tests and bivariate correlations) and conditional WTP (GLM models). GLM for PC showed being male, employed and having distant relatives with diabetes were significant predictors for WTP, while for SH being educated, employed and owning a vehicle were significant predictors. CONCLUSION: Both PC and SH showed theoretical validity in rural Kenya. However, the use of SH over PC in rural Kenya may be the better choice given that SH more closely mirrors marketplace transactions in this setting and the use of SH resulted in more significant variables in the GLM models.

U.S. publication trends in social and administrative pharmacy: implications for promotion and tenure.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the preferred approach to assess journal quality. Procedures previously used include journal acceptance or rejection policies, impact factors, number of subscribers, citation counts, whether the articles were refereed or not, and journals cited in books within the discipline. This study built on the work of previous authors by using a novel approach to assess journal quality in social and administrative pharmacy (SAdP). OBJECTIVES: To determine U.S. SAdP faculty perceptions of prestigious journals for their research, SAdP faculty perceptions of prestigious journals by their promotion and tenure (P&T) committees, and current research trends in SAdP. METHODS: A census of U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy was conducted using an e-mailed survey and an open-ended approach requiring respondents to list their preferred journals. RESULTS: Seventy-nine SAdP faculty reported that the 5 most prestigious journals were JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Health Affairs, Health Services Research, and Medical Care. These journals were selected because respondents wished to seek broad readership. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study can be used as a guide by U.S. SAdP faculty and P&T committees to assess the quality of publications by pharmacy administration faculty with the caveat being that pharmacy versus nonpharmacy journals will be chosen based on the fit of the article with the audience.