Comparisons of rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone monotherapy introduction and associated health care utilization in medicaid-enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) can differ based on the antidiabetic medication that is used. Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are a newer class of agents used for the treatment of type 2 DM. No previous study has compared health care utilization associated with the 2 TZDs on the market. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare health care utilization and costs associated with initiation of treatment with either rosiglitazone or pioglitazone by Medicaid-enrolled patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: This was a retrospective data analysis comparing cohorts of patients with type 2 DM starting a new antidiabetic medication in terms of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient physician visits, and health care costs reimbursed by the North Carolina Medicaid program. The perspective adopted in this analysis was that of the third-party payer (ie, the North Carolina Medicaid program). Patients starting rosiglitazone between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, were compared with patients starting pioglitazone during the same period. The patients were followed up for 30 months to examine the difference in health care utilization over time. Multivariate regression techniques were employed for comparisons between the 2 different antidiabetic therapies. RESULTS: A total of 1705 patients with type 2 DM were identified and included in the final cohort. There were 660 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.0 [10.2] years) in the rosiglitazone arm and 1045 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [10.5] years) in the pioglitazone arm. Multivariate analysis showed that the rosiglitazone monotherapy group was associated with a 12.2% decrease in the mean number of hospitalizations, a 10.4% decrease in the mean number of emergency department visits, and a 7.3% decrease in total health care costs compared with the pioglitazone monotherapy group (all, P < 0.05). This study only looked at patients who used the same drug for the entire follow-up period. It did not account for drug switching or addition of a new drug to an existing therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of rosiglitazone was associated with a decreased number of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and total health care costs compared with pioglitazone. The utilization of oral antidiabetic agents, with documented clinical and economic benefits, should continue to be advocated to reduce avoidable medical care utilization and to improve patient outcomes in this population.

Comparisons of rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone monotherapy introduction and associated health care utilization in Medicaid-enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) can differ based on the antidiabetic medication that is used. Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are a newer class of agents used for the treatment of type 2 DM. No previous study has compared health care utilization associated with the 2 TZDs on the market. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare health care utilization and costs associated with initiation of treatment with either rosiglitazone or pioglitazone by Medicaid-enrolled patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: This was a retrospective data analysis comparing cohorts of patients with type 2 DM starting a new antidiabetic medication in terms of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient physician visits, and health care costs reimbursed by the North Carolina Medicaid program. The perspective adopted in this analysis was that of the third-party payer (ie, the North Carolina Medicaid program). Patients starting rosiglitazone between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, were compared with patients starting pioglitazone during the same period. The patients were followed up for 30 months to examine the difference in health care utilization over time. Multivariate regression techniques were employed for comparisons between the 2 different antidiabetic therapies. RESULTS: A total of 1705 patients with type 2 DM were identified and included in the final cohort. There were 660 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.0 [10.2] years) in the rosiglitazone arm and 1045 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [10.5] years) in the pioglitazone arm. Multivariate analysis showed that the rosiglitazone monotherapy group was associated with a 12.2% decrease in the mean number of hospitalizations, a 10.4% decrease in the mean number of emergency department visits, and a 7.3% decrease in total health care costs compared with the pioglitazone monotherapy group (all, P < 0.05). This study only looked at patients who used the same drug for the entire follow-up period. It did not account for drug switching or addition of a new drug to an existing therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of rosiglitazone was associated with a decreased number of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and total health care costs compared with pioglitazone. The utilization of oral antidiabetic agents, with documented clinical and economic benefits, should continue to be advocated to reduce avoidable medical care utilization and to improve patient outcomes in this population.

Scale of interest versus scale of estimation: comparing alternative estimators for the incremental costs of a comorbidity.

We investigate how the scale of estimation in risk-adjustment models for health-care costs affects the covariate effect, where the scale of interest for the covariate effect may be different from the scale of estimation. As an illustrative example, we use claims data to estimate the incremental costs associated with heart failure within one year subsequent to myocardial infarction. Here, the scale of interest for the effect of heart failure on costs is additive. However, traditional methods for modeling costs use predetermined scale of estimation - for example, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression assumes an additive scale while log-transformed OLS and generalized linear models with log-link assume a multiplicative scale of estimation. We compare these models with a new flexible model that lets the data determine the appropriate scale of estimation. We use a variety of goodness-of-fit measures along with a modified Copas test to assess robustness, lack of fit, and over-fitting properties of the alternative estimators. Biases up to 19% in the scale of interest are observed due to the misrepresentation of the scale of estimation. The new flexible model is found to appropriately represent the scale of estimation and less susceptible to over-fitting despite estimating additional parameters in the link and the variance functions.

Evidence of the economic benefit of clinical pharmacy services: 1996-2000.

We sought to summarize and assess original evaluations of the economic impact of clinical pharmacy services published from 1996-2000, and to provide recommendations and methodologic considerations for future research. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles that were then blinded and randomly assigned to reviewers who confirmed inclusion and abstracted key information. Results were compared with those of a similar review of literature published from 1988-1995. In the 59 included articles, the studies were conducted across a variety of practice sites that consisted of hospitals (52%), community pharmacies and clinics (41%), health maintenance organizations (3%), and long-term or intermediate care facilities (3%). They focused on a broad range of clinical pharmacy services such as general pharmacotherapeutic monitoring (47%), target drug programs (20%), disease management programs (10%), and patient education or cognitive services (10%). Compared with the studies of the previous review, a greater proportion of evaluations were conducted in community pharmacies or clinics, and the types of services evaluated tended to be more comprehensive rather than specialized. Articles were categorized by type of evaluation: 36% were considered outcome analyses, 24% full economic analyses, 17% outcome descriptions, 15% cost and outcome descriptions, and 8% cost analyses. Compared with the studies of the previous review, a greater proportion of studies in the current review used more rigorous study designs. Most studies reported positive financial benefits of the clinical pharmacy service evaluated. In 16 studies, a benefit:cost ratio was reported by the authors or was able to be calculated by the reviewers (these ranged from 1.7:1-17.0:1, median 4.68:1). The body of literature from this 5-year period provides continued evidence of the economic benefit of clinical pharmacy services. Although the quality of study design has improved, whenever possible, future evaluations of this type should incorporate methodologies that will further enhance the strength of evidence of this literature and the conclusions that may be drawn from it.

Survey of hospital policies regarding low-molecular-weight heparins.

Hospital policies regarding the use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) were studied. A questionnaire addressing the formulary status of LMWH products, the use of prescribing guidelines, programs for therapeutic interchange, and policies to promote alternatives to LMWHs when appropriate was prepared. The questionnaire was mailed in January 2001 to pharmacy directors at 70 hospitals located in 19 states. All the hospitals were members of a national group purchasing organization. Forty-nine usable responses were received, for a response rate of 70%. Enoxaparin and dalteparin were the LMWH products most likely to be on the respondents' formularies (98% and 29% of hospitals, respectively). About 29% of the hospitals reported having guidelines on the use of LMWHs. Among hospitals that did not, most indicated that they were considering or would like to implement such guidelines. The most commonly cited barrier to the development and implementation of guidelines was lack of pharmacy personnel. Ten percent of the respondents reported having therapeutic-interchange programs for LMWHs. Cited barriers to therapeutic interchange programs included lack of therapeutic equivalence among products and lack of comparable labeled indications. Policies to promote alternatives to LMWHs were reported by 18% of the respondents. A multihospital survey showed that many hospitals wanted but relatively few had prescribing guidelines for LMWHs.