Health care utilization and costs of systemic lupus erythematosus in the United States: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate health care utilization and costs for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by disease severity. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase from January 2000 to June 2020 for observational studies examining health care utilization and costs associated with SLE among adults in the United States. Two independent reviewers reviewed the selected full-text articles to determine the final set of included studies. Costs were converted to 2020 US $. RESULTS: We screened 9224 articles, of which 51 were included. Mean emergency department visits were 0.3-3.5 per year, and mean hospitalizations were 0.1-2.4 per year (mean length of stay 0.4-13.0 days). Patients averaged 10-26 physician visits/year. Mean annual direct total costs were $17,258-$63,022 per patient and were greater for patients with moderate or severe disease ($19,099-$82,391) compared with mild disease ($12,242-$29,233). Mean annual direct costs were larger from commercial claims ($24,585-$63,022) than public payers (Medicare and Medicaid: $18,302-$27,142). CONCLUSIONS: SLE remains a significant driver of health care utilization and costs. Patients with moderate to severe SLE use more health care services and incur greater direct and indirect costs than those with mild disease.

Association between organ damage and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: At least half of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) develop organ damage as a consequence of autoimmune disease or long-term therapeutic steroid use. This study synthesised evidence on the association between organ damage and mortality in patients with SLE. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature for observational (cohort, case-control and cross-sectional) studies published between January 2000 and February 2017. Included studies reported HRs or ORs on the association between organ damage (measured by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) score) and mortality. Study quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa assessment. Pooled HRs were obtained using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q (Q) and I2 statistics. RESULTS: The search yielded 10 420 articles, from which 21 longitudinal studies were selected. Most studies (85%) were of high quality. For 10 studies evaluating organ damage (SDI) as a continuous variable and reporting HR as a measure of association, a 1-unit increase in SDI was associated with increased mortality; pooled HR was 1.34 (95% CI: 1.24 to 1.44, p<0.001; Q p=0.027, I2=52.1%). Exclusion of one potential outlying study reduced heterogeneity with minimal impact on pooled HR (1.33 (95% CI: 1.25 to 1.42), p<0.001, Q p=0.087, I2=42.0%). The 11 remaining studies, although they could not be aggregated because of their varying patient populations and analyses, consistently demonstrated that greater SDI was associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Organ damage in SLE is consistently associated with increased mortality across studies from various countries. Modifying the disease course with effective therapies and steroid-sparing regimens may reduce organ damage, improve outcomes and decrease mortality for patients with SLE.

Serotonin levels and 1-year mortality in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: Elevated serotonin in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) may impact heart failure incidence but a quantitative relationship has not been established. Materials & methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing 24-h urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (u5-HIAA) and mortality in patients with NETs (2007-2017) with a primary outcome of 1-year mortality risk and 24-h u5-HIAA. Results: We identified 1715 records of which 12 studies including 755 patients (3442 person-years with 376 deaths) were eligible for meta-analysis. Mean u5-HIAA was 149.2 mg/24 h (standard deviation: 96.6) and mortality was 13.0%. The meta-regression equation showed an 11.8% (95% CI: 8.9-17.0%; I2  = 93.0%) increase in 1-year mortality for every ten-unit increase in u5-HIAA. Conclusion: Serotonin measured by its metabolite u5-HIAA is predictive of 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with NETs.

The Value of U.S. Pharmacopeial Standards: A Review of the Literature.

While there are many standard-setting health care organizations, the United States Pharmacopeial Convention's (USP) role includes the creation of documentary and physical standards for therapeutics, including chemical drugs, excipients, and biologics. Despite the ubiquity of these standards, little work has been carried out to characterize and quantify their value. We reviewed the peer-reviewed and gray literature relevant to such evaluations. The review yielded 36 articles, focused variously on accreditation and other standards in health care, the broad impact of pharmacopeial standards and evaluations of specific USP standards. We did not find any study quantifying the impact of USP or other pharmacopeial standards, but many reports have been published that suggest the utility of USP standards to drug development, quality assurance, and public health. Frequently cited areas of impact include equitably advancing the analytical capabilities of manufacturers; enabling the creation of legally enforceable naming conventions; detecting mislabeled and substandard drugs in the marketplace, especially in the context of increased globalization of drug markets; and facilitating the harmonization of diverse international drug quality standards. Our insights provide opportunities for empiric assessments of the effects of USP standards on important outcomes including their promotion of efficient drug development, market competition, drug quality, and patient safety.

Coverage of Nonpharmacologic Treatments for Low Back Pain Among US Public and Private Insurers.

Importance: Despite epidemic rates of addiction and death from prescription opioids in the United States, suggesting the importance of providing alternatives to opioids in the treatment of pain, little is known regarding how payers' coverage policies may facilitate or impede access to such treatments. Objective: To examine coverage policies for 5 nonpharmacologic approaches commonly used to treat acute or chronic low back pain among commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, plus an additional 6 treatments among Medicaid plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 15 commercial, 15 Medicaid, and 15 Medicare Advantage health plans for the 2017 calendar year in 16 states representing more than half of the US population. Interviews were conducted with 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans. Main Outcomes and Measures: Medical necessity and coverage status for the treatments examined, as well as the use of utilization management tools and cost-sharing magnitude and structure. Results: Commercial and Medicare insurers consistently regarded physical and occupational therapy as medically necessary, but policies varied for other therapies examined. Payers most commonly covered physical therapy (98% [44 of 45 plans]), occupational therapy (96% [43 of 45 plans]), and chiropractic care (89% [40 of 45 plans]), while transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (67% [10 of 15 plans]) and steroid injections (60% [9 of 15 plans]) were the most commonly covered among the therapies examined for Medicaid plans only. Despite evidence in the literature to support use of acupuncture and psychological interventions, these therapies were either not covered by plans examined (67% of all plans [30 of 45] did not cover acupuncture) or lacked information about coverage (80% of Medicaid plans [12 of 15] lacked information about coverage of psychological interventions). Utilization management tools, such as prior authorization, were common, but criteria varied greatly with respect to which conditions and what quantity and duration of services were covered. Interviewees represented 6 Medicaid managed care organizations, 2 Medicare Advantage or Part D plans, 9 commercial plans, and 3 trade organizations (eg, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association). Interviews with plan executives indicated a low level of integration between the coverage decision-making processes for pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for chronic pain. Conclusions and Relevance: Wide variation in coverage of nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain may be driven by the absence of best practices, the administrative complexities of developing and revising coverage policies, and payers' economic incentives. Such variation suggests an important opportunity to improve the accessibility of services, reduce opioid use, and ultimately improve the quality of care for individuals with chronic, noncancer pain while alleviating the burden of opioid addiction and overdose.

Prescription Drug Coverage for Treatment of Low Back Pain Among US Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Commercial Insurers.

Importance: Despite unprecedented injuries and deaths from prescription opioids, little is known regarding medication coverage policies for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain among US insurers. Objective: To assess medication coverage policies for 62 products used to treat low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of health plan documents from 15 Medicaid, 15 Medicare Advantage, and 20 commercial health plans in 2017 from 16 US states representing more than half the US population and 20 interviews with more than 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans. Data analysis was conducted from April 2017 to January 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Formulary coverage, utilization management, and patient out-of-pocket costs. Results: Of the 62 products examined, 30 were prescription opioids and 32 were nonopioid analgesics, including 10 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 10 antidepressants, 6 muscle relaxants, 4 anticonvulsants, and 2 topical analgesics. Medicaid plans covered a median of 19 opioids examined (interquartile range [IQR], 12-27; median, 63%; IQR, 40%-90%) and a median of 22 nonopioids examined (IQR, 21-27; median, 69%; IQR, 66%-83%). Medicare Advantage plans covered similar proportions (median [IQR], opioids: 17 [15-22]; 57% [50%-73%]; nonopioids: 22 [22-26]; 69% [69%-81%]), while commercial plans covered more opioids (median [IQR], 23 [21-25]; 77% [70%-84%]) and nonopioids (median [IQR], 26 [24-27]; 81% [74%-85%]). Utilization management strategies were common for opioids in Medicaid plans (median [IQR], 15 [11-20] opioids; 91% [74%-97%]), Medicare Advantage plans (median [IQR], 15 [9-18] opioids; 100% [100%-100%]), and commercial plans (median [IQR], 16 [11-20] opioids; 74% [53%-94%]), generally relying on 30-day quantity limits rather than prior authorization. Step therapy was especially uncommon. Many of the nonopioids examined also were subject to utilization management, especially quantity limits (24%-32% of products across payers) and prior authorization (median [IQR], commercial plans: 2 [0-3] nonopioids; 9% [0%-11%]; Medicare Advantage plans: 4 [3-5] nonopioids; 19% [10%-23%]; Medicaid plans: 6 [1-13] nonopioids; 38% [2%-52%]). Among commercial plans, the median plan placed 18 opioids (74%) and 20 nonopioids (81%) in tier 1, which was associated with a median out-of-pocket cost of $10 (IQR, $9-$10) per 30-day supply. Key informant interviews revealed an emphasis on increasing opioid utilization management and identifying high-risk prescribers and patients, rather than promoting comprehensive strategies to improve treatment of chronic pain or better integrating pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic alternatives to opioids. Conclusions and Relevance: Given the effect of coverage policies on drug utilization and health outcomes, these findings provide an important opportunity to evaluate how formulary placement, utilization management, copayments, and integration of nonpharmacologic treatments can be optimized to improve pain care while reducing opioid-related injuries and deaths.

Clinical and economic outcomes of nonadherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is common in typical human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patient care settings, but the consequences have not been well described. This study aimed to quantify the clinical and economic effects of nonadherence and estimate the cost-effectiveness of improving adherence in treatment-naive HIV patients. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs for patients on an initial once-daily regimen of efavirenz, lamivudine, and stavudine XR. The model compared 2 adherence scenarios: "ideal" (based on clinical trials) and "typical" (based on observational studies in actual practice). Disease progression was a function of viral load, CD4 count, and adherence. Data on HIV natural history, treatment benefits, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. RESULTS: With typical adherence, patients lose 1.2 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) that could be gained with ideal adherence. Improving adherence to ideal levels is cost-effective at 29,400 US dollars/QALY gained. As much as 1,600 US dollars/y per patient could be spent on an intervention to improve adherence to ideal levels, and the incremental cost-effectiveness would remain less than 50,000 US dollars/QALY gained. A cost-effectiveness ratio of 50,000 US dollars/QALY is a commonly accepted minimum standard for cost-effective medical interventions in the United States, although many experts believe this standard has drifted upwards over time. CONCLUSIONS: Typical adherence with HAART reduces quality-adjusted life expectancy by 12% compared with ideal adherence. Interventions to improve adherence appear to be a highly cost-effective use of resources.

Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin compared with other statins from a managed care perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the most cost-effective statin or combination of statins, from the perspective of a managed care payer. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared the cost-effectiveness of titration to goal with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Effectiveness measures included the percentage change from baseline LDL-C and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and the percentage of patients achieving National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Second Adult Treatment Panel (ATP II) LDL-C goals. Direct medical costs were calculated based on drug, physician, and laboratory resource use, multiplied by wholesale acquisition costs for drugs and the 2005 Medicare reimbursement rates for services. A Monte Carlo simulation tested the sensitivity of results to model efficacy inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, rosuvastatin dominated atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin. Generic lovastatin dominated fluvastatin. The incremental (absolute) reduction in LDL-C, increase in HDL-C, and increase in patients to goal with rosuvastatin compared with lovastatin were 16%, 3%, and 27%, respectively. Incremental costs per additional 1% reduction in LDL-C, 1% increase in HDL-C, and patient to goal with rosuvastatin versus lovastatin were $8, $41, and $436, respectively. A wide variety of assumptions were assessed and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were conducted. Findings were most sensitive to the cost of lovastatin. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin dominates atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin because it is more effective and less costly, and it may be considered cost-effective compared with generic lovastatin. The most cost-effective two-statin formulary contained lovastatin and rosuvastatin.

Predictors of adherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with comorbid hypertension and dyslipidemia are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, which can be considerably mitigated by treatment. Adherence with prescribed drug therapy is, therefore, especially important in these patients. This study was undertaken to describe the patterns and predictors of adherence with concomitant antihypertensive (AH) and lipid-lowering (LL) therapy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined 8406 enrollees in a US managed care plan who initiated treatment with AH and LL therapy within a 90-day period. Adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered in each 3-month interval following initiation of concomitant therapy (mean follow-up, 12.9 months). Patients were considered adherent if they had filled prescriptions sufficient to cover at least 80% of days with both classes of medications. A multivariate regression model evaluated potential predictors of adherence. RESULTS: The percentage of patients adherent with both AH and LL therapy declined sharply following treatment initiation, with 44.7%, 35.9%, and 35.8% of patients adherent at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, and other potential predictors, patients were more likely to be adherent if they initiated AH and LL therapy together, had a history of coronary heart disease or congestive heart failure, or took fewer other medications. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence with concomitant AH and LL therapy is poor, with only 1 in 3 patients adherent with both medications at 6 months. Physicians may be able to significantly improve adherence by initiating AH and LL therapy concomitantly and by reducing pill burden.

Follow-up lipid tests and physician visits are associated with improved adherence to statin therapy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The National Cholesterol Education Program recommends regular physician follow-up and lipid testing to promote adherence with lipid-lowering medications. The objective of this study was to determine whether lipid tests and physician visits after treatment initiation are indeed associated with adherence to statin therapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among 19 422 enrolees in a US managed care plan who initiated treatment with a statin between October 1999 and August 2001. Computerised pharmacy, medical and laboratory records were used to study the patterns and predictors of adherence with lipid-lowering therapy for up to 3 years. Adherence was assessed in 3-month intervals with patients considered 'adherent' if > or = 80% of days were covered by lipid-lowering therapy. RESULTS: In the first 3 months, 40% of patients had follow-up lipid tests and only 21% had dyslipidaemia visits (14% had both). Those receiving such care were substantially more likely to be adherent in subsequent intervals. Compared with those without follow-up, the relative odds of adherence were 1.42 and 1.27 for patients with one or more lipid test and one or more dyslipidaemia visit, respectively (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.33, 1.50 and 1.16, 1.39). Patients who received a follow-up visit and lipid test were 45% more likely to be adherent (95% CI 1.34, 1.55). Similar associations were observed when lipid tests and dyslipidaemia visits occurred later in therapy. CONCLUSION: Early and frequent follow-up by physicians--especially lipid testing--was associated with improved adherence to lipid-lowering therapy. A randomised prospective study is needed to determine whether this relationship is causal.

Assessing resource use in oncology patients: a comparison of analyses based on claims data and medical chart review.

BACKGROUND: Provider claims data are used to make medical analyses and decisions, but such databases typically lack important clinical information. OBJECTIVE: To compare the patterns of use of filgrastim in analyses of a claims database and a medical chart review. METHODS: We extracted data from the Medicare 5% sample claims database for the years 1996 through 1998 and from a medical chart review of the Oncology Practice Pattern Survey (OPPS) for the same period to determine the patterns of use of filgrastim in patients with non-Hodgkin.s lymphoma treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. The analyses were restricted to the first 3 cycles of the chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 414 patients in the Medicare database were treated with 1,360 cycles of chemotherapy. The mean duration of filgrastim use in these patients was 6.6 days. In the OPPS database, 80 patients were treated with 152 cycles of chemotherapy, with a mean duration of filgrastim use of 9.3 days. CONCLUSION: The mean duration of filgrastim use in the OPPS database was greater than that in the Medicare database and was closer to that shown in clinical trials to produce optimal results (approximately 11 days). The actual use of resources may be underestimated in claims databases, owing to their limitations and potential for bias.