Differences in Patient Demographics and Healthcare Costs of Patients with PIDD Receiving Intravenous or Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Therapies in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Primary immune-deficiency disease (PIDD) is a rare, debilitating disease of the immune system that predisposes the affected individual to infection, autoimmune conditions, and neoplasm. A major component of the cost of treating PIDD is the high price of immunoglobulin drugs, which can be administered via an intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world costs for patients with PIDD who are receiving IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) or SC immunoglobulin (SCIG) treatment, from a US payer perspective, using a large claims database. METHODS: Based on 2011 to 2013 data from the PharMetrics Plus database, a large national healthcare claims database, patients who were newly diagnosed with PIDD were included in the study if they had ≥2 claims for PIDD that were ≥90 days apart, and if they were treatment-naïve for a minimum of 1 year before the study period. Patients who switched the route of immunoglobulin administration were excluded, with the exception of patients who received SCIG who could initially receive ≤2 IV-loading infusions, as directed by treatment guidelines. We used propensity score analysis to match the patients in the SCIG cohort to patients in the IVIG cohort based on age, sex, and all Elixhauser comorbidities. We compared the patient characteristics and direct medical costs (all-cause, PIDD-related, and pharmacy-related) before and after matching, using t-tests for continuous variables, chi-square test for categorical variables, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for differences in medians. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients with PIDD (986 who received IVIG and 653 who received SCIG) met all the study inclusion criteria. Compared with the patients who received IVIG, the patients who received SCIG were predominantly female (58% vs 63%, respectively) and significantly younger (mean age, 49.1 vs 40.3 years, respectively). Significantly fewer patients who received SCIG than those receiving IVIG had claims with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for Elixhauser comorbidities, including cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions, diabetes, renal failure, liver disease, cancers, weight loss, fluid and electrolyte disorders, and psychoses (P <.05 for all), and their Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were lower than those receiving IVIG (1.74 vs 3.01, respectively; P ≤.05 for all). After matching the 2 cohorts (N = 553 in each), the 1-year postindex median total PIDD-related costs were significantly lower in the IVIG group than in the SCIG group ($38,064 vs $43,266, respectively; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In matched analyses, PIDD-related treatment costs were higher for patients who received SCIG than for those who received IVIG. Furthermore, patients who received SCIG were significantly younger and had significantly less comorbidities than their counterparts who received IVIG, suggesting that patient characteristics that reflect a desire and greater capacity for autonomy may affect physicians' choice of the route of administration for immunoglobulin.

Impact of a Health Management Program on Healthcare Outcomes among Patients on Augmentation Therapy for Alpha 1-Antitrypsin Deficiency: An Insurance Claims Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is a genetic disorder which reduces serum alpha 1-antitrypsin (AAT or alpha1-proteinase inhibitor, A1PI) and increases the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Management strategies include intravenous A1PI augmentation, and, in some cases, a health management program (Prolastin Direct®; PD). OBJECTIVES: This study compared clinical and economic outcomes between patients with and without PD program participation. METHODS: This retrospective study included commercial and Medicare Advantage health insurance plan members with ≥ 1 claim with diagnosis codes for COPD and ≥ 1 medical or pharmacy claim including A1PI (on index date). Outcomes were compared between patients receiving only Prolastin® or Prolastin®-C (PD cohort) and patients who received a different brand without PD (Comparator cohort). Demographic and clinical characteristics were captured during 6 months pre-index. Post-index exacerbation episodes and healthcare utilization and costs were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 445 patients (n = 213 in PD cohort; n = 232 in Comparator cohort), with a mean age 55.5 years, 50.8% male, and 78.9% commercially insured. The average follow-up was 822 days (2.25 years), and the average time on A1PI was 747 days (2.04 years). Few differences were observed in demographic or clinical characteristics. Adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, the rate of severe exacerbation episodes was reduced by 36.1% in the PD cohort. Adjusted total annual all-cause costs were 11.4% lower, and adjusted mean respiratory-related costs were 10.6% lower in the PD cohort than the Comparator cohort. Annual savings in all-cause total costs in the PD cohort relative to the Comparator cohort was US$25,529 per patient, largely due to significantly fewer and shorter hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that comprehensive health management services may improve both clinical and economic outcomes among patients with COPD and AATD who receive augmentation therapy. FUNDING: Grifols Shared Services of North America, Inc.

Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium for the acute treatment of probable migraine without aura: a randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: Probable migraine is a common, disabling migraine subtype fulfilling all but one of the diagnostic criteria for migraine. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium for the acute treatment of probable migraine without aura. METHODS: Patients treated a headache of probable migraine without aura when pain was moderate or severe with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium ( N = 222 intent-to-treat (ITT)) or placebo ( N = 221 ITT/complete case analysis (a) ) in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. RESULTS: Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was more effective than placebo with respect to the co-primary efficacy endpoints two-hour pain-free response (29% sumatriptan/naproxen sodium vs 11% placebo, P < 0.001) and two- to 24-hour sustained pain-free response (24% sumatriptan/naproxen sodium vs 9% placebo, P < 0.001). Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was significantly more effective than placebo with respect to the secondary efficacy endpoints of pain-free response four hours postdose ( P < 0.001), pain-free response maintained one to two hours postdose ( P = 0.034) and two to four hours postdose ( P < 0.001), headache relief four hours postdose ( P < 0.001), headache relief maintained two to four hours postdose ( P = 0.015), sustained headache relief two through 24 hours postdose ( P = 0.002), and rescue medication use ( P < 0.001); but not productivity scores. The most common adverse events were dizziness (4% sumatriptan/naproxen sodium,<1% placebo), dry mouth (2% sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, <1% placebo), and nausea (2% sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, <1% placebo). CONCLUSION: Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium is effective in the acute treatment of probable migraine as demonstrated by higher rates of freedom from pain and restoration of function.

Evaluating migraineurs' preferences for migraine treatment outcomes using a choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of migraines on patients is commonly divided between the level of impairment associated with headache symptoms (headache phase) and the quality-of-life effects immediately following the headache (post-headache phase). Evaluations of migraineurs' productivity losses and health-related quality of life have provided an understanding of the burden associated with the headache and post-headache symptoms, but do not quantify the relative importance of each phase from a patient perspective. In this study, we evaluated migraineurs' willingness to accept trade-offs among symptom severity in the headache and post-headache phases, symptom duration in the headache and post-headache phases, and symptom-free time within a general-preference theoretic framework. METHODS: We administered a choice-format, conjoint-analysis survey, also called a discrete-choice experiment, to a sample of migraineurs from a nationally representative online consumer panel. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 510 eligible subjects completed the survey. The survey elicited choices between pairs of migraine profiles describing symptom durations and symptom-free time for the headache and post-headache phase. RESULTS: Migraineurs in our study were strongly affected by the pain associated with the headache phase. However, experiencing difficulty with daily social and family activities in the post-headache phase also had a statistically significant impact on migraineurs' perceived level of well-being. Migraineurs reported that hypothetical treatments that limited the duration of headache symptoms without allowing them to resume their daily activities for 16 hours after a headache, on average, were less than half as good as treatments that limited both headache and post-headache symptoms. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that treatments that relieve and shorten symptoms during the post-headache phase can offer significant benefits to migraineurs.