Comparative analysis of long-term organ damage in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus using belimumab versus standard therapy: a post hoc longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term extension (LTE) studies of belimumab in SLE do not include a comparator arm, preventing comparisons between belimumab plus standard therapy and standard therapy alone for organ damage accrual. Propensity score matching can be used to match belimumab-treated patients from LTE studies with standard therapy-treated patients from observational cohort studies. This analysis was designed to compare organ damage progression between treatment groups (belimumab plus standard therapy vs standard therapy alone) in patients with SLE with ≥5 years of follow-up, reproducing our previous study with more generalisable data. METHODS: This exploratory post hoc analysis used a heterogeneous population of US and non-US patients receiving monthly intravenous belimumab from pooled BLISS LTE trials (BEL112234/NCT00712933) and standard therapy-treated patients from the Toronto Lupus Cohort. Sixteen clinical variables were selected to calculate the propensity score. RESULTS: The 592 LTE and 381 Toronto Lupus Cohort patients were highly dissimilar across the 16 variables; an adequately balanced sample of 181 LTE and 181 matched Toronto Lupus Cohort patients (mean bias=3.7%) was created using propensity score matching. Belimumab treatment was associated with a smaller increase in Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) over 5 years than standard therapy alone (mean treatment difference=-0.453 (95% CI -0.646 to -0.260); p<0.001). Patients treated with belimumab were 60% less likely to progress to a higher SDI score over any given year of follow-up, compared with standard therapy alone (HR (95% CI) 0.397 (0.275 to 0.572); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using propensity score matching, this highly heterogeneous sample was sufficiently matched to the Toronto Lupus Cohort, suggesting that patients treated with intravenous belimumab may have reduced organ damage progression versus standard therapy alone. This analysis of a large and diverse pooled SLE population was consistent with our previously published US-focused study.

Organ damage in patients treated with belimumab versus standard of care: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The study (206347) compared organ damage progression in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received belimumab in the BLISS long-term extension (LTE) study with propensity score (PS)-matched patients treated with standard of care (SoC) from the Toronto Lupus Cohort (TLC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 17 known predictors of organ damage to calculate a PS for each patient. Patients from the BLISS LTE and the TLC were PS matched posthoc 1:1 based on their PS (±calliper). The primary endpoint was difference in change in Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) score from baseline to 5 years. RESULTS: For the 5- year analysis, of 567 (BLISS LTE n=195; TLC n=372) patients, 99 from each cohort were 1:1 PS matched. Change in SDI score at Year 5 was significantly lower for patients treated with belimumab compared with SoC (-0.434; 95% CI -0.667 to -0.201; p<0.001). For the time to organ damage progression analysis (≥1 year follow-up), the sample included 965 (BLISS LTE n=259; TLC n=706) patients, of whom 179 from each cohort were PS-matched. Patients receiving belimumab were 61% less likely to progress to a higher SDI score over any given year compared with patients treated with SoC (HR 0.391; 95% CI 0.253 to 0.605; p<0.001). Among the SDI score increases, the proportion of increases ≥2 was greater in the SoC group compared with the belimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: PS-matched patients receiving belimumab had significantly less organ damage progression compared with patients receiving SoC.

Association of Anticholinergic Burden with Cognitive Impairment and Health Care Utilization Among a Diverse Ambulatory Older Adult Population.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) score and both cognitive impairment and health care utilization among a diverse ambulatory older adult population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. DATA SOURCE: Medication exposure and other clinical data were extracted from the Regenstrief Medical Record System (RMRS), and cognitive diagnosis was derived from a dementia screening and diagnosis study. PATIENTS: A total of 3344 community-dwelling older adults (age 65 yrs and older) who were enrolled in a previously published dementia screening and diagnosis study; of these, 3127 were determined to have no cognitive impairment, and 217 were determined to have cognitive impairment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study followed a two-phase screening and comprehensive neuropsychiatric examination to determine a cognitive diagnosis, which defined cognitive impairment as dementia or mild cognitive impairment. The ACB scale was used to identify anticholinergics dispensed in the 12 months prior to screening. A total daily ACB score was calculated by using pharmacy dispensing data from RMRS; each anticholinergic was multiplied by 1, 2, or 3 consistent with anticholinergic burden defined by the ACB scale. The sum of all ACB medications was divided by the number of days with any medication dispensed to achieve the total daily ACB score. Health care utilization included visits to inpatient, outpatient, and the emergency department, and it was determined by using visit data from the RMRS. The overall population had a mean age of 71.5 years, 71% were female, and 58% were African American. Each 1-point increase in mean total daily ACB score was associated with increasing risk of cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.004-1.27, p=0.043). Each 1-point increase in mean total daily ACB score increased the likelihood of inpatient admission (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.29, p=0.014) and number of outpatient visits after adjusting for demographic characteristics, number of chronic conditions, and prior visit history (estimate 0.382, standard error [SE] 0.113; p=0.001). The number of visits to the emergency department was also significantly different after similar adjustments (estimate 0.046, SE 0.023, p=0.043). CONCLUSION: Increasing total ACB score was correlated with an increased risk for cognitive impairment and more frequent health care utilization. Future work should study interventions that safely reduce ACB and evaluate the impact on brain health and health care costs.

Estimated Budget Impact of Increased Use of Mirabegron, A Novel Treatment for Overactive Bladder.

BACKGROUND: Oral pharmacological treatment for overactive bladder (OAB) consists of antimuscarinics and the beta-3 adrenergic agonist mirabegron. Antimuscarinic adverse events (AEs) such as dry mouth, constipation, and blurry vision can result in frequent treatment discontinuation rates, leaving part of the OAB population untreated. Antimuscarinics also contribute to a patient's anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB), so the Beers Criteria recommends cautious use of antimuscarinics in elderly patients who take multiple anticholinergic medications or have cognitive impairment. Since mirabegron does not affect the cholinergic pathways, it is unlikely to contribute to a patient's ACB. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the health care costs associated with the pharmacological treatment of OAB with mirabegron and antimuscarinics from U.S. commercial payer and Medicare Advantage perspectives, using a budget impact model. METHODS: For this budget impact model, 2 analyses were performed. The primary analysis estimated the budgetary impact of increasing the use of mirabegron in a closed patient cohort treated with oral pharmacological treatments. The secondary analysis modeled the economic impact in an open cohort by allowing untreated patients to begin treatment with mirabegron after potential contraindication, intolerance, or lack of effectiveness of antimuscarinics. The analyses were performed over a 3-year time horizon. The economic impact of increased mirabegron use was quantified using direct medical costs, including prescription costs and health resource utilization (HRU) costs. Costs of comorbidities included pharmacy and medical costs of treating OAB-related urinary tract infections (UTI), skin rashes, and depression. An analysis of a large single-site integrated health network database was commissioned to quantify ACB-related HRU in terms of the increases in yearly outpatient and emergency department visits. Based on this analysis, the model associated each unit increase in ACB score with increased HRU and probability of mild cognitive impairment. Clinical outcomes of increased use of mirabegron were presented as the number of AEs and comorbidity episodes that could be avoided. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to quantify the expected budget impact over the range of uncertainty for the key input variables. RESULTS: Primary analysis calculated the impact of increasing the use of mirabegron from 4.5% to 5.3%, 7.1%, and 9.4% in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, among oral pharmacological OAB treatments that included generic and branded antimuscarinics: oxybutynin, tolterodine, trospium, darifenacin, fesoterodine, and solifenacin. For a 1 million-member U.S. commercial payer plan, the total prescription costs increased, and the total medical costs decreased during the 3-year time horizon, yielding increases of $0.005, $0.016, and $0.031 from current per member per month (PMPM) costs and $0.90, $2.92, and $5.53 from current per treated member per month (PTMPM) costs, an average of less than 2% of current OAB treatment costs. For the Medicare Advantage plan, the resulting incremental PMPM costs were $0.010, $0.034, and $0.065, and the incremental PTMPM costs were $0.93, $3.04, and $5.76; all were less than 4% of the current cost. The secondary analysis estimated the budgetary effects of reducing the untreated population by 1% annually by initiating treatment with mirabegron. For a commercial payer, this resulted in PMPM cost increases of $0.156, $0.311, and $0.467 from the current value, while the incremental PTMPM cost increased by $6.17, $11.67, and $16.61. For the Medicare Advantage plan, the incremental increases in PMPM costs were $0.277, $0.553, and $0.830, and in PTMPM costs were $6.42, $12.15, and $17.29. Clinically, treating more OAB patients resulted in fewer OAB-related comorbidities from both health plan perspectives, since most events associated with nontreatment could be avoided. In the Medicare Advantage population of the secondary analysis, the total numbers of avoided events were predicted as 452 UTIs, 2,598 depression diagnoses, and 3,020 skin rashes during the time horizon of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron addresses an unmet need for therapy for certain OAB patients, for whom antimuscarinics are not recommended because of a risk of cognitive impairment and who are intolerant to the anticholinergic AEs. Using mirabegron involves moderate additional economic cost to a commercial or Medicare Advantage health plan for which medical cost savings can offset a substantial part of increased pharmacy costs. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Astellas. Perk, Wielage, T. Klein, and R. Klein are employed by Medical Decision Modeling, a contract research company that was paid to perform the described outcomes research and build the model contained in this study. Campbell and Perkins are employed by the Regenstrief Institute, which conducted a database analysis for this research. Campbell reports consultancy fees from Astellas, as well as pending grants from Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme Corp. Posta, Yuran, and Ng are employed by Astellas Pharma Global Development, the developer of mirabegron. Study concept and design were contributed by Perk, Wielage, R. Klein, and Ng. Campbell, T. Klein, and Perkins took the lead in data collection, assisted by Perk, Wielage, and Ng. Data interpretation was performed by Posta and Yuran, along with Perk, Wielage, R. Klein, Ng, Campbell, and Perkins. The manuscript was written by Perk and R. Klein, along with Wielage, T. Klein, Posta, Yuran, and Ng, and revised by all the authors.

Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder: cost-effectiveness from US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The first class of oral pharmacologic treatments for overactive bladder (OAB) are antimuscarinics that are associated with poor persistence, anticholinergic adverse events, and increased anticholinergic burden (ACB) with risk of cognitive impairment. Mirabegron, a ß3-adrenoceptor agonist, is an oral treatment that does not contribute to ACB and has early evidence of improved persistence. The objective of the analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of mirabegron for OAB vs six antimuscarinics in the US. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model assessed US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives over a 3-year time horizon in an OAB patient population. Transition probabilities between five micturition and five incontinence severity states were derived from a network meta-analysis of 44 trials of oral OAB treatments. Therapy beginning with an oral OAB agent could discontinue or switch to another oral agent and could be followed by tibial nerve stimulation, sacral neuromodulation, or onabotulinumtoxinA. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Utilities were mapped from incontinence and micturition frequencies as well as demographics. Based on analysis of data from a large healthcare system, elevated ACB was associated with increased healthcare utilization and probability of cognitive impairment. RESULTS: From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. Tolterodine immediate release (IR) was also on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The analysis estimated costs per QALY of $59,690 and $66,347 for mirabegron from commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, respectively, compared to tolterodine IR. Other antimuscarinics were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis estimated that mirabegron is a cost-effective treatment for OAB from US commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, due to fewer projected adverse events and comorbidities, and data suggesting better persistence.

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine for osteoarthritis: a Quebec societal perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of duloxetine compared to other oral postacetaminophen treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) from a Quebec societal perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed enhancing the Markov model from the 2008 OA guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The NICE model was extended to include opioid and antidepressant comparators, adding titration, discontinuation, and relevant adverse events (AEs). Comparators included duloxetine, celecoxib, diclofenac, naproxen, hydromorphone, and oxycodone extended release (oxycodone). AEs included gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as fracture, opioid abuse, and constipation, among others. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in 2011 Canadian dollars. The base case modeled a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA for a 12-month period of treatment, followed by treatment from a basket of post-discontinuation oral therapies until death. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic) were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, naproxen was the least expensive treatment, whereas oxycodone was the most expensive. Duloxetine accumulated the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with an ICER of $36,291 per QALY versus celecoxib. Duloxetine was dominant over opioids. In subgroup analyses, ICERs for duloxetine versus celecoxib were $15,619 and $20,463 for patients at high risk of NSAID-related AEs and patients ages >65 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was cost effective for a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA, and more so in older patients and those with greater AE risks.

The efficacy of duloxetine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids in osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis. METHODS: A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was ≥12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions.WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors. RESULTS: Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%.Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoarthritis oral therapies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been performed for oral non-disease-altering osteoarthritis (OA) treatments for well over a decade. During that period the methods for performing these analyses have evolved as pharmacoeconomic methods have advanced, new treatments have been introduced, and the knowledge of associated adverse events (AEs) has improved. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to trace the development of CEAs for oral non-disease-altering treatments in OA. METHODS: A systematic search for CEAs of OA oral treatments was performed of the English-language medical literature using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process, EconLit, and Cochrane. Key requirements for inclusion were that the population described patients with OA or arthritis and that the analysis reported at least one incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Each identified publication was assessed for inclusion. Thirteen characteristics and all AEs appearing in each included CEA were extracted and organized. Reference lists from these CEAs were also searched. A chronology of key CEAs in the field was compiled, noting the characteristics that advanced the state of the art in modeling oral OA treatments. RESULTS: Thirty publications of 28 CEAs were identified and evaluated. Developments in CEAs included an expanded set of comparators that broadened from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) only to NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and opioids. In turn, AEs expanded from gastrointestinal (GI) events to also include cardiovascular (CV) and neurological events. Efficacy, which initially was presumed to be equivalent for all treatments, evolved to treatment-specific efficacies. Decision-tree analyses were generally replaced by Markov models or, occasionally, stochastic or discrete event simulation. Finally, outcomes have progressed from GI-centric measures to also include quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSION: Methods used by CEAs of oral non-disease-altering OA treatments have evolved in response to changing treatments with different safety profiles and efficacies as well as technical advances in the application of decision science to health care.

Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a US private payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs. RESULTS: In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs. CONCLUSION: The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a US private payer perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) from a US private payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken for duloxetine and seven oral post-first-line comparators, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), weak and strong opioids, and an anticonvulsant. We created a Markov model on the basis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines. Health states included treatment, death, and 12 states associated with serious adverse events (AEs). We estimated treatment-specific utilities by carrying out a meta-analysis of pain scores from CLBP clinical trials and developing a transfer-to-utility equation using duloxetine CLBP patient-level data. Probabilities of AEs were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated from osteoarthritis clinical trials by using a novel maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were gathered from Red Book, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature, and, for a limited number of inputs, expert opinion. The model performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost acceptability curves. RESULTS: The model estimated an ICER of $59,473 for duloxetine over naproxen. ICERs under $30,000 were estimated for duloxetine over non-NSAIDs, with duloxetine dominating all strong opioids. In subpopulations at a higher risk of NSAID-related AEs, the ICER over naproxen was $33,105 or lower. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine appears to be a cost-effective post-first-line treatment for CLBP compared with all but generic NSAIDs. In subpopulations at risk of NSAID-related AEs, it is particularly cost-effective.