Factors Related to the Use of Topical vs. Oral NSAIDs for Sprains, Strains, and Contusions in a Senior Population: A Retrospective Analysis of Administrative Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Research to date on sprains, strains, and contusions has focused mainly on the analysis of sports-related injuries, occupational injuries, injuries resulting from automobile accidents, and severe injuries that result in inpatient hospital stays. Little is known about real-world acute sprains, strains, and contusions in an aging population. Patients may be treated with over-the-counter, oral, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for acute sprains, strains, and contusions or may require the use of prescription NSAIDs. For sprains, strains, and contusions treated with prescription NSAIDs, the choice of topical administration or oral administration likely depends on a number of factors such as age and comorbid conditions. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to identify factors associated with the use of a prescription topical NSAID or a prescription oral NSAID for the treatment of sprains, strains, and contusions among patients aged 65-89 years enrolled in the Medicare Advantage with Prescription Drug plan. METHODS: The study sample was selected from the Humana Research Database (Louisville, KY, USA). Study subjects were identified as patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage with Prescription Drug plans, aged 65-89 years, having a medical claim with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification indicative of an acute sprain, strain, and contusion between 1 January, 2010 and 31 March, 2014 (identification period). The date of the first claim was considered the index date, and subjects were required to have 12 months of continuous enrollment before the index date and a minimum of 3 months continuous enrollment after the index date. Prescription NSAID use during the 3 months after the index sprain, strain, and contusion diagnosis was required for study inclusion and was identified based on a pharmacy claim for a topical or an oral NSAID. Patients with prescription NSAID use leading up to the sprains, strains, and contusions were excluded. Potential factors related to the use of a topical vs. oral NSAID were identified using stepwise logistic regression with backward elimination. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42,283 patients were prescribed an oral or topical NSAID (39,294 oral; 2989 topical) within 3 months of the index sprain, strain, and contusion diagnosis. After applying stepwise logistic regression, and retaining variables with statistically significant parameter estimates (p < 0.05), use of topical NSAIDs was higher among female individuals [odds ratio and 95% confidence interval = 1.34 (1.24-1.45)], and appeared to increase with age [odds ratio = 1.04 (1.04-1.05)]. Topical NSAID use was lower in the Midwest region [odds ratio = 0.85 (0.77-0.94)] in comparison to the Southern region. Clinical factors associated with topical NSAID use included Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score [odds ratio = 1.06 (1.04-1.09)], medication burden [odds ratio = 1.06 (1.04-1.08), pill burden [odds ratio = 1.02 (1.01-1.03), specific comorbid conditions, including site-specific osteoarthritis of the upper arm [odds ratio = 2.34 (1.19-4.60)], ankle/foot [odds ratio = 1.46 (1.14-1.87)], or lower leg [odds ratio = 1.21 (1.07-1.36)], myofascial pain [odds ratio = 1.31 (1.21-1.42)], gastrointestinal/hepatic disorders [odds ratio = 1.15 (1.05-1.25)], systemic/central pain [odds ratio = 1.12 (1.01-1.23)], and cataracts [odds ratio = 1.10 (1.02-1.20)]. Conversely, a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus was related to use of an oral NSAID rather than a topical NSAID [odds ratio = 0.86 (0.78-0.94)]. Diagnosis of the index sprain, strain, and contusion in an emergency department instead of a physician's office was also associated with oral NSAID use [odds ratio = 0.42 (0.37-0.47)]. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were used less often than oral NSAIDs following a sprain, strain, or contusion. Age, medication burden, pill burden, evidence of gastrointestinal disorder, and evidence of certain pain-related conditions were significant factors associated with topical NSAID as opposed to oral NSAID use. In comparison to oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs were more likely to be prescribed in a physician's office than an emergency department, possibly because a patient's physician has a better understanding of the patient's concomitant medications and comorbidities. Although topical NSAIDs were more likely to be used than oral NSAIDs in patients with gastrointestinal disorders, the use of oral NSAIDs among patients with gastrointestinal bleeding was substantial.

Healthcare Utilization and Costs of Knee or Hip Replacements versus Pain-Relief Injections.

BACKGROUND: Given the dramatic increase in total knee and hip replacement procedures among the US population aged 45 years and older, there is a need to compare the downstream healthcare utilization and costs between patients who undergo joint replacement and those who receive intraarticular injections as a low-cost alternative. OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in osteoarthritis (OA)-related healthcare utilization and costs for Medicare members with OA who underwent knee or hip replacement versus those receiving steroid or viscosupplementation injections. METHODS: Medicare members aged ≥45 years diagnosed with OA were identified for this retrospective longitudinal study. Data were compared for patients who underwent primary knee or hip replacement surgery between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2012, and those receiving injection of pain-relief medication during the same period. The date of joint replacement surgery was considered the index date. For the comparison cohort, the index date was 180 days postinjection of the first intraarticular injection. Medical and pharmacy claims were examined longitudinally in 90-day increments, from 180 days preindex until 360 days postindex. Difference-in-difference analyses were conducted to compare the change in OA-related healthcare costs, postindex versus preindex, between the study cohorts. Time-to-event analyses were used to measure rates of readmissions and venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESULTS: The mean age was 70.7 years for patients with knee replacement, 71.7 years for those with hip replacement, and 71.1 years for those receiving pain-relief injection (P <.0001). The RxRisk-V comorbidity index scores were 4.7, 4.4, and 4.8, respectively (P <.0001). Difference-in-difference analyses indicated that decreases in OA-related costs were greater for the joint replacement cohorts (coefficient for knee replacement*time: -0.603; hip replacement*time: -0.438; P <.001 for both) than for the comparison cohort. The VTE rates were 5.6% (knee) and 5.1% (hip) postsurgery versus 1.4% (knee) and 1.3% (hip) presurgery. CONCLUSION: The overall difference-in-difference results showed a greater decrease in healthcare utilization and costs for the members with joint replacement than for those receiving injection.

Pain conditions ranked by healthcare costs for members of a national health plan.

Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs specific to pain are a growing concern, as increasing dollar amounts are spent on pain-related conditions. Understanding which pain conditions drive the highest utilization and cost burden to the healthcare system would enable providers and payers to better target conditions to manage pain adequately and efficiently. The current study focused on 36 noncancer chronic and 14 noncancer acute pain conditions and measured the HCRU and costs per member over 365 days. These conditions were ranked by per-member costs and total adjusted healthcare costs to determine the most expensive conditions to a national health plan. The top 5 conditions for the commercial line of business were back pain, osteoarthritis (OA), childbirth, injuries, and non-hip, non-spine fractures (adjusted annual total costs for the commercial members were $119 million, $98 million, $69 million, $61 million, and $48 million, respectively). The top 5 conditions for Medicare members were OA, back pain, hip fractures, injuries, and non-hip, non-spine fractures (adjusted annual costs for the Medicare members were $327 million, $218 million, $117 million, $82 million, and $67 million, respectively). The conditions ranked highest for both per-member and total healthcare costs were hip fractures, childbirth, and non-hip, non-spine fractures. Among these, hip fractures in the Medicare member population had the highest mean cost per member (adjusted per-member cost was $21,058). Further examination specific to how pain is managed in these high-cost conditions will enable providers and payers to develop strategies to improve patient outcomes through appropriate pain management.

Inefficiencies in osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain management.

OBJECTIVE: To identify inefficiencies in drug and medical service utilization related to pain management in patients with osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study applied revised measures of pain management inefficiencies to Humana Medicare members with osteoarthritis and/or chronic low back pain. METHODS: Subjects had either 2 or more claims for osteoarthritis on different days or 2 or more claims for low back pain 90 or more days apart, from January 1, 2008, to June 30, 2010, with the first occurrence assigned the index date. Inefficiencies were identified for 365 days postindex.Pain-related healthcare costs postindex were compared between members with and without inefficiencies. A generalized linear model calculated adjusted costs per member controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Most members diagnosed with osteoarthritis, chronic low back pain, or both (N = 68,453) had at least 1 inefficiency measure (n = 37,863) during the postindex period. High per member costs were for repeated surgical procedures ($26,451) and inpatient admissions ($19,372) compared with members without inefficiencies ($781; P < .0001). High total costs (prevalence times per member cost) were for repeated diagnostic testing and excessive office visits. Members with an inefficiency had adjusted pain-related costs 5.42 times higher than those of members without an inefficiency (P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pain management inefficiencies are common and costly among Humana Medicare members with osteoarthritis and/or chronic low back pain. Further work by providers and payers is needed to determine benefits of member identification and early intervention for these inefficiencies.