Assessing the Burden and Cost of COVID-19 Across Variants in Commercially Insured Immunocompromised Populations in the United States: Updated Results and Trends from the Ongoing EPOCH-US Study.

INTRODUCTION/METHODS: EPOCH-US is an ongoing, retrospective, observational cohort study among individuals identified in the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD®) with ≥ 12 months of continuous health plan enrollment. Data were collected for the HIRD population (containing immunocompetent and immunocompromised [IC] individuals), individual IC cohorts (non-mutually exclusive cohorts based on immunocompromising condition and/or immunosuppressive [IS] treatment), and the composite IC population (all unique IC individuals). This study updates previous results with addition of the general population cohort and data specifically for the year of 2022 (i.e., Omicron wave period). To provide healthcare decision-makers the most recent trends, this study reports incidence rates (IR) and severity of first SARS-CoV-2 infection; and relative risk, healthcare utilization, and costs related to first COVID-19 hospitalizations in the full year of 2022 and overall between April 2020 and December 2022. RESULTS: These updated results showed a 2.9% prevalence of immune compromise in the population. From April 2020 through December 2022, the overall IR of COVID-19 was 115.7 per 1000 patient-years in the composite IC cohort and 77.8 per 1000 patient-years in the HIRD cohort. The composite IC cohort had a 15.4% hospitalization rate with an average cost of $42,719 for first COVID-19 hospitalization. Comparatively, the HIRD cohort had a 3.7% hospitalization rate with an average cost of $28,848 for first COVID-19 hospitalization. Compared to the general population, IC individuals had 4.3 to 23 times greater risk of hospitalization with first diagnosis of COVID-19. Between January and December 2022, hospitalizations associated with first COVID-19 diagnosis cost over $1 billion, with IC individuals (~ 3% of the population) generating $310 million (31%) of these costs. CONCLUSION: While only 2.9% of the population, IC individuals had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and incurred higher healthcare costs across variants. They also disproportionately accounted for over 30% of total costs for first COVID-19 hospitalization in 2022, amounting to ~ $310 million. These data highlight the need for additional preventive measures to decrease the risk of developing severe COVID-19 outcomes in vulnerable IC populations.

Assessing the risk and costs of COVID-19 in immunocompromised populations in a large United States commercial insurance health plan: the EPOCH-US Study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of patients with an immunocompromising condition at risk for COVID-19, estimate COVID-19 prevalence rate (PR) and incidence rate (IR) by immunocompromising condition, and describe COVID-19-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. METHODS: Using the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD), patients with ≥1 claim for an immunocompromising condition of interest or ≥2 claims for an immunosuppressive (IS) treatment and COVID-19 diagnosis during the infection period (1 April 2020-31 March 2022) and had ≥12 months baseline data were included. Cohorts (other than the composite cohort) were not mutually exclusive and were defined by each immunocompromising condition. Analyses were descriptive in nature. RESULTS: Of the 16,873,161 patients in the source population, 2.7% (n = 458,049) were immunocompromised (IC). The COVID-19 IR for the composite IC cohort during the study period was 101.3 per 1000 person-years and the PR was 13.5%. The highest IR (195.0 per 1000 person-years) and PR (20.1%) were seen in the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) cohort; the lowest IR (68.3 per 1000 person-years) and PR (9.4%) were seen in the hematologic or solid tumor malignancy cohort. Mean costs for hospitalizations associated with the first COVID-19 diagnosis were estimated at nearly $1 billion (2021 United States dollars [USD]) for 14,516 IC patients, with a mean cost of $64,029 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Immunocompromised populations appear to be at substantial risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, leading to increased costs and HCRU. Effective prophylactic options are still needed for these high-risk populations as the COVID-19 landscape evolves.

People who have a medical condition or take a medicine that can suppress their immune system (immunocompromised) have a high risk of getting COVID-19. Our study looked at how many immunocompromised people got COVID-19. We also looked at the costs and lengths of hospital stays for people with COVID-19. We found that 2.7% of the people in this large US population with health insurance were immunocompromised. People who were immunocompromised were more likely to get COVID-19 than people who were not immunocompromised. About 14% of the immunocompromised people in this study got COVID-19 and, of those, 24% were hospitalized. Immunocompromised patients in this study had long hospital stays and high costs associated with COVID-19. The risk of getting COVID-19 and having a severe case seemed to be highest for people with advanced kidney disease. The study results showed that COVID-19 can cause severe health issues in immunocompromised people and the use of vaccinations, medications, and other measures to prevent COVID-19 are especially important for immunocompromised people.

Real-world treatment patterns and use of adjunctive pain and anti-inflammatory medications among patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with IL-17A inhibitors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Much of the current research on treatment patterns and use of adjunctive pain and anti-inflammatory medications among patients living with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) predates the approval and uptake of IL (interleukin)-17A inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world treatment patterns and use of adjunctive pain and antiinflammatory medications between patients with PsA initiating the IL-17A inhibitors, ixekizumab and secukinumab, in a US-managed care population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Patients with a PsA diagnosis who initiated ixekizumab or secukinumab treatment between December 1, 2017, and November 30, 2019, were identified. Two cohorts were created based on which of the 2 medications was initiated (index date), and patients with prior use of either drug were excluded, as were patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Patients had to be continuously enrolled in the health plan for 6 months prior to (baseline) and 12 months after the index date (post-index). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to minimize confounding from baseline demographic and clinical differences between cohorts. Treatment patterns (dosing, persistence, discontinuation, and switching) and use of adjunctive pain/anti-inflammatory medications were assessed and compared between weighted cohorts using chi-square and t-tests. RESULTS: In total, 407 patients were identified in the ixekizumab cohort (mean age 51.6 years; 54% female) and 1,508 patients were identified in the secukinumab cohort (mean age 50.1 years; 59% female). Prior to weighting, presence of a psoriasis diagnosis code (ixekizumab: 60% vs secukinumab: 45%; standardized difference [std diff] = -0.30), specialty of the index prescriber (std diff = 0.38), and mean number of prior advanced therapies (2.0 vs 1.5; std diff = -0.33) were different between cohorts. Cohorts were well balanced after weighting. The majority of secukinumab patients (71%) received an index dose of 300 mg. Rates of persistence (ixekizumab: 40% vs secukinumab: 43%; P = 0.411) and switching (25% vs 20%; P = 0.072) were not statistically different between cohorts. Use of new adjunctive pain and anti-inflammatory medications was not statistically different between cohorts either (ixekizumab: 63% vs secukinumab: 58%; P = 0.187). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world treatment patterns and use of adjunctive pain and anti-inflammatory medications were similar in patients with PsA initiating ixekizumab and secukinumab in this US-managed care population. Further research examining reasons for discontinuation, switching, and use of adjunctive medications may help inform treatment decisions for patients living with PsA. DISCLOSURES: Ms Pizzicato, Ms Ketkar, and Dr Grabner are employees of HealthCore, Inc, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company for the conduct of the study on which this manuscript is based. Ms Pepe was an employee of HealthCore, Inc., during the time the study was conducted. Dr Grabner is a shareholder of Elevance Health (legacy Anthem, Inc.). Dr Vadhariya, Dr Birt, and Ms Bolce are employees of Eli Lilly and Company, the manufacturer of ixekizumab (Taltz). Dr Birt and Ms Bolce are shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Walsh is a paid consultant to Eli Lilly and Company and Novartis, the manufacturers of ixekizumab (Taltz) and secukinumab (Cosentyx), respectively. Additionally, Dr Walsh is a paid consultant for Pfizer, Janssen, AbbVie, and UCB and has contracts with Pfizer, AbbVie, and Merck.

Cost-utility analysis of heart surgeries for young adults with severe rheumatic mitral valve disease in India.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic mitral valve disease (RMVD) is a major cause of acquired valvular disease in India. We compared the cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment strategies for young adults with severe RMVD from an Indian public payer perspective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to reflect the burden of RMVD among a hypothetical cohort of 20-year-olds in India and to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs associated with three strategies: (1) Repair; (2) Mechanical valve replacement (MVR-M); and (3) Bioprosthetic valve replacement (MVR-B), compared to a baseline strategy involving a mix of surgeries approximating the standard of care in India (32% Repair, 33% MVR-M, 35% MVR-B). Data on disease burden, intervention effects, and direct medical costs (2018 US$) were obtained from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. RESULTS: Repair ($2530, 9.7 QALYs) was less costly and more effective than the standard of care ($2990, 8.7 QALYs) and MVR-M ($3220, 6.2 QALYs). The incremental cost-effective ratio for MVR-B ($3190, 10.1 QALYs) compared to Repair was $1590 per QALY, which may be cost-effective at a threshold of India's per-capita gross domestic product (GDP: $2005). The optimal choice between Repair or MVR-B was sensitive to variations in surgery costs, background mortality, and risks for reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Our model-based analysis suggests that Repair is the optimal strategy and MVR-M should not be recommended for this subpopulation. MVR-B may be cost-effective in contexts where quality of Repair is not assured, newer generation bioprostheses are used, or the costs of the bioprosthetic valve decrease.