The budget impact of introducing the OMNI® surgical system to a United States health plan for managing mild-to-moderate primary open-angle glaucoma.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery devices fill an unmet need in the treatment paradigm between topical intraocular pressure medicines and more invasive filtration procedures. This study evaluated the adoption of The OMNI® Surgical System with or without cataract surgery in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. METHODS: A budget impact analysis estimated costs before and after adoption of OMNI® to a hypothetical US health plan with 1 million Medicare-covered lives over two years. Model input data were derived from published sources and development of the model included primary research with key opinion leaders and payers. The model compared total annual direct costs for OMNI® versus other treatment options (medications, other minimally invasive surgical procedures, selective laser trabeculoplasty) to calculate budget impact. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Increased adoption of OMNI® resulted in budget neutrality over the two years with a decrease in total costs of $35,362. Per member per month incremental costs were $0.00 when used without cataract surgery and yielded cost savings of -$0.01 when used with cataract surgery. Sensitivity analysis confirmed model robustness and identified surgical center fee variability as a key driver of costs. CONCLUSION: OMNI® is budgetary efficient from a US payer perspective.

The Economic Burden of ACPA-Positive Status Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) are serological biomarkers associated with early, rapidly progressing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including more severe disease and joint damage. ACPA testing has become a routine tool for RA diagnosis and prognosis. Furthermore, treatment efficacy has been shown to vary by ACPA-positive status. However, it is not clear if the economic burden of patients with RA varies by ACPA status. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the economic burden of RA varies by patient ACPA status. METHODS: IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims and electronic medical record (EMR) data from 2010-2015 were used to identify patients with incident RA. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had ≥ 1 inpatient or ≥ 2 outpatient claims reporting an RA diagnosis code (ICD-9-CM code 714.0), and had an anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP; a surrogate of ACPA) antibody test within 6 months of diagnosis. Incident patients were defined as those who had no claims with an RA diagnosis code in the 6 months before the first observed RA diagnosis. The primary outcome of interest was RA-related medical expenditures, defined as the sum of payer- and patient-paid amounts for all claims with an RA diagnosis code. Secondary outcomes included health care utilization metrics such as treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and physician visits. Generalized linear regression models were used for each outcome, controlling for ACPA-positive status (defined as anti-CCP ≥ 20 AU/mL), age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score as explanatory variables. RESULTS: Of 647,171 patients diagnosed with RA, 89,296 were incident cases, and 47% (n = 42,285) had an anti-CCP test. After restricting this sample to patients with a linked EMR and reported anti-CCP test result, 859 remained, with 24.7% (n = 212) being ACPA-positive. Compared with ACPA-negative patients, adjusted results showed that ACPA-positive patients were more likely to use either conventional (71.2% vs. 49.6%; P < 0.001) or biologic (20.3% vs. 11.8%; P < 0.001) DMARDs during the first year after diagnosis and had more physician visits (5.58 vs. 3.91 times per year; P < 0.001). Annual RA-associated total expenditures were $7,941 for ACPA-positive and $5,243 for ACPA-negative patients (Δ = $2,698; P = 0.002). RA-associated medical expenditures were $4,380 for ACPA-positive and $3,427 for ACPA-negative patients (Δ = $954; P = 0.168), whereas DMARD expenditures were $3,560 and $1,817, respectively (Δ = $1,743; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RA-related economic burden is higher for patients who are ACPA-positive compared with those who are ACPA-negative. Providers may wish to inform patients diagnosed with ACPA-positive RA about the likely future disease and economic burden in hopes that both stakeholders can be more proactive in addressing them. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was contributed by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Patel and Price are employees and stockholders of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Shafrin and Tebeka are employees of Precision Health Economics, a health care consulting firm that received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb to conduct this study. Michaud has received a grant from Pfizer and is employed by the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases, which has received funds from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Study concept and design were contributed by Shafrin, Price, Patel, and Michaud. Shafrin, Price, and Patel collected the data, and all authors contributed equally to data analysis. The manuscript was written by Shafrin and Tebeka and revised by Shafrin, Price, Patel, and Michaud.

Treatment and discharge patterns among patients hospitalized with non-valvular atrial fibrillation transitioning from the inpatient to outpatient setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate inpatient oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment, discharge location, and post-discharge OAC treatment for patients hospitalized with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective study using claims data linked to hospital electronic health records (EHR). Patients (n = 2,484) were hospitalized with a primary (38%) or secondary (62%) diagnosis of AF without evidence of mitral valvular heart disease or valve replacement between January 2009 and September 2013. Inpatient OAC treatment was identified from EHR data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inpatient and post-discharge OAC treatment [direct OAC (DOAC; apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran), warfarin, no OAC] and discharge location (long-term care, home health-care, home self-care). RESULTS: Mean age was 72.6 years, 61.2% were male, and 89.5% had a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Overall, 6.4% received a DOAC, 38.0% warfarin, and 55.6% no OAC during hospitalization. Compared to other treatment groups, patients receiving DOAC were younger and more likely to be male. The majority (72.2%) were discharged to home health-care, 13.2% home self-care, and 6.0% long-term care. Among patients who were treated with warfarin during hospitalization, 40.3% filled a warfarin prescription within 30 days post-discharge, whereas among patients who were treated with a DOAC, 52.4% filled a DOAC prescription within 30 days post-discharge. Some NVAF patients not treated with an OAC during hospitalization filled a prescription for warfarin (18.0%) or DOAC (1.9%) within 30 days post-discharge. Results were similar among patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients hospitalized for NVAF were discharged to home support, and the majority did not have OAC treatment during hospitalization or the 30 days post-discharge. Additional investigation should be conducted on trends beyond 30 days post-hospitalization, and the reasons for not receiving anticoagulation therapy in patients at moderate-to-severe risk of stroke or systemic embolism. Helping to avoid preventable strokes is an important goal for public health.

Real-world comparison of all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations due to stroke and major bleeding, and costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients prescribed oral anticoagulants in a US health plan.

AIMS: To compare the risk of all-cause hospitalization and hospitalizations due to stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding, as well as associated healthcare costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NVAF patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were selected from the OptumInsight Research Database from January 1, 2013-September 30, 2015. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between apixaban and each oral anticoagulant. Cox models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding. Generalized linear and 2-part models were used to compare healthcare costs. RESULTS: Of the 47,634 eligible patients, 8,328 warfarin-apixaban pairs, 3,557 dabigatran-apixaban pairs, and 8,440 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Compared to apixaban, warfarin patients were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21-1.40) as well as stroke/SE-related (HR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.23-2.07) and major bleeding-related (HR = 1.95; 95% CI = 1.60-2.39) hospitalization; rivaroxaban patients were associated with a higher risk of all-cause (HR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.07-1.24) and major bleeding-related hospitalization (HR = 1.71; 95% CI = 1.39-2.10); and dabigatran patients were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding hospitalization (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.02-2.10). Warfarin patients had significantly higher major bleeding-related and total all-cause healthcare costs compared to apixaban patients. Rivaroxaban patients had significantly higher major bleeding-related costs compared to apixaban patients. No significant results were found for the remaining comparisons. LIMITATIONS: No causal relationships can be concluded, and unobserved confounders may exist in this retrospective database analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a significantly higher risk of hospitalization (all-cause, stroke/SE, and major bleeding) associated with warfarin, a significantly higher risk of major bleeding hospitalization associated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, and a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization associated with rivaroxaban compared to apixaban. Lower major bleeding-related costs were observed for apixaban patients compared to warfarin and rivaroxaban patients.

Incidence of dose escalation and impact on biologic costs among patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with three intravenous agents.

AIM: Evaluation of dose escalation and costs among rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with intravenous abatacept, intravenous infliximab or intravenous tocilizumab. MATERIALS & METHODS: Adults with rheumatoid arthritis and biologic treatment were identified from the MarketScan® Research databases. Study outcomes included dose escalation, per-patient per-month (PPPM) biologic costs and PPPM all-cause total healthcare costs. Impact of dose escalation on biologic costs was estimated using multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The sample included 6181 patients. Infliximab and tocilizumab cohorts had significantly higher likelihood for dose escalation than abatacept cohort; incremental PPPM impacts of dose escalation on costs were statistically significant for each biologic (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients initiating abatacept were least likely to escalate dose and had lowest incremental impact of dose escalation on cost compared with patients with infliximab or tocilizumab.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis by ACPA subgroups in Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Canada.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept in serum anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients, with increasing efficacy across ACPA quartile levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost per response accrued using abatacept versus adalimumab in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients with RA from the health care perspective in Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and Canada. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was designed to compare the monthly costs per responding patient/patient in remission. Efficacy, safety and resource use inputs were based on the AMPLE trial. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was also performed to assess the impact of model inputs on the results for total incremental costs. Cost per response in ACPA-positive patients favoured abatacept compared with adalimumab (ACR20, ACR90 and HAQ-DI). Subgroup analysis favoured abatacept with increasing stringency of response criteria and serum ACPA levels. Cost per remission (DAS28-CRP) favoured abatacept in ACPA-negative patients, while cost per CDAI and SDAI favoured abatacept in ACPA-positive patients. Abatacept was consistently favoured in ACPA-Q4 patients across all outcomes and countries. Cost savings were greater with abatacept when more stringent response criteria were applied and also with increasing ACPA levels, which could lead to a lower overall health care budget impact with abatacept compared with adalimumab.

Clinical characteristics, healthcare costs, and resource utilization in hepatitis C vary by genotype.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, approximately 3 million people are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Genotypes of HCV variably affect disease progression and treatment response. However, the relationships between HCV genotypes and liver disease progression, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare costs have not been fully explored. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective study of patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC), healthcare claims from a large US health plan were used to collect data on patient demographic and clinical characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures include healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs. Linked laboratory data provided genotype and select measures to determine liver disease severity. RESULTS: The sample (mean age 50.6 years, 63.5% male) included 10,331 patients, of whom 79.1% had genotype (GT)1, 12.8% had GT2, and 8.1% had GT3. Descriptive analyses demonstrated variation by HCV genotype in liver and non-liver related comorbidities, liver disease severity, and healthcare costs. The highest percentage of patients with liver-related comorbidities and advanced liver disease was found among those with GT3. Meanwhile, patients with GT2 had lower HCRU and the lowest costs, and patients with GT1 had the highest total all-cause costs. These differences may reflect differing rates of non-liver-related comorbidities and all-cause care. Multivariable analyses showed that genotype was a significant predictor of costs and liver disease severity: compared with patients having GT1, those with GT3 were significantly more likely to have advanced liver disease. Patients with GT2 were significantly less likely to have advanced disease and more likely to have lower all-cause costs. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to patients outside the represented commercial insurance plans, and analysis of a prevalent population may underestimate HCRU and costs relative to a sample of treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that liver disease progression varies by genotype and that CHC patients with GT3 appear to have more severe liver disease. These findings highlight the importance of effective HCV treatment for all patients and support guidelines for treatment of high-risk patients, including those with GT3.

Rates, factors, reasons, and economic impact associated with switching in rheumatoid arthritis patients newly initiated on biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in an integrated healthcare system.

Objectives To identify how many RA patients newly-initiated on bDMARD therapy switch to another bDMARD during the first year of treatment; to evaluate the factors and reasons associated with bDMARD switching; and to compare the RA-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between switchers vs non-switchers during the post-index period. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted in RA patients using the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) database with the study time period of January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012. The index date was defined as the date of the first bDMARD prescription. Patients had to have continuous membership eligibility with drug benefit and no prior history of bDMARD during the 24 months prior to the index date. bDMARD switching was defined as a different bDMARD claim during post-index. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with switchers vs non-switchers. Chart notes were reviewed to evaluate reasons for switching from index bDMARD. RA-related HCRU use and costs were evaluated using a generalized linear model (GLM) with gamma distribution and log link function. Results Two hundred and fifty-one patients (12%) switched from their index bDMARD to a different bDMARD during the post-index period. bDMARD switchers were more likely to be female, of Asian/Pacific race, younger than ≤65 years of age, overweight, CCI score ≤2, initiating etanercept or adalimumab, and have a commercial insurance plan compared to non-switchers. Reasons for switching were related mostly to lack or loss of efficacy (∼51%); bDMARD switchers had overall mean adjusted RA related total costs that were 25% higher (p = 0.04) compared to non-switchers. Conclusion It is important for RA patients to receive appropriate therapy and consider bDMARD with different mechanisms of action to decrease subsequent switching, and decrease overall RA related costs as shown in this study.

Budget impact analysis of liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B lipid complex in the treatment of invasive fungal infections in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) and amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) are both indicated for treating invasive fungal infections (IFIs) caused by Aspergillus, Candida and Cryptococcus spp. among patients who are refractory to or intolerant of conventional amphotericin B (CAB). Prior studies have suggested similar efficacies but differences in adverse event (AE) profiles between L-AMB and ABLC. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to conduct a cost-minimisation and budget impact analysis for the treatment of IFIs with L-AMB and ABLC in a US hospital setting. METHODS: A Microsoft® Excel-based budget impact model was developed to estimate the costs associated with using L-AMB and ABLC for the treatment of adult patients with Aspergillus, Candida and Cryptococcus spp. infections, who are refractory to or intolerant of CAB, during a hospital stay. The model was built from a hospital perspective, and included drug costs of L-AMB and ABLC, and costs for treating drug-related AEs (i.e. nephrotoxicity with/without dialysis, infusion-related reactions, anaphylaxis, hypomagnesaemia and hypokalaemia). Average sales price was used as the drug cost estimate in the base-case analyses. The treatment duration and rates of AEs for L-AMB and ABLC were mainly obtained from a retrospective study of these two drugs in the target population using the Cerner Health Facts data. Treatment costs of AEs were obtained from the publicly available sources. The budget impact ($US, year 2011 values) was evaluated for a hypothetical hospital with 100 administrations where L-AMB and ABLC are used for the treatment of the target population by changing the market share of L-AMB and ABLC from 32/68% to an anticipated market share of 60/40% in the base-case analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying drug costs, rates of AEs, costs of AEs and anticipated market shares of L-AMB and ABLC. RESULTS: The estimated per-patient cost per hospital episode associated with L-AMB and ABLC use were $US14,563 and $US16,748, respectively. Cost of AEs accounted for 68.7% of the costs for L-AMB and 85.4% for ABLC. In a hypothetical hospital with 100 annual admissions of patients using these two drugs for IFIs, changing the market shares from 32/68% for L-AMB and ABLC, respectively, to 60/40% yielded a 3.8% cost reduction, which corresponded to an absolute cost savings of $US61,191. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in input parameter values in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that hospitals can realize cost savings by substituting L-AMB for ABLC in the treatment of IFIs. The cost savings are driven by the lower rates of AEs associated with L-AMB use compared with ABLC.