Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with steroid-resistant chronic graft-versus-host disease in the United States: a retrospective claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is the most serious non-relapse complication affecting long-term allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors. We describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with steroid-resistant (SR) cGVHD versus no GVHD up to 360 and 720 days post-HCT. METHODS: Claims from the Optum Research Database were used to identify patients aged ≥12 years who underwent allogeneic HCT (index date) in the United States from 01 January 2010 to 31 August 2016 with diagnosis of cGVHD (within the study period or unspecified GVHD beyond 120 days post-HCT [SR defined as additional therapy ≥7 days after initiation of systemic steroids]) or no GVHD at any time. All-cause HCRU and costs were compared in patients with SR cGVHD (1-year analysis, n = 296; 2-year analysis, n = 178) versus no GVHD (1-year analysis, n = 227; 2-year analysis, n = 158). RESULTS: Most patients with SR cGVHD (75%) received ≥4 lines of therapy during follow-up. Patients with SR cGVHD had significantly more median office visits (49 vs. 27), outpatient visits (69 vs. 24), emergency department visits (1 vs. 0), and inpatient admissions (2 vs. 1) within 1 year post-HCT versus patients with no GVHD (all p<.001); HCRU was also higher in the 2-year period. Median total all-cause costs were significantly higher (p<.001) for patients with SR cGVHD versus no GVHD in the 1-year ($372,254 vs. $219,593) and 2-year ($532,673 vs. $252,909) follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SR cGVHD required multiple lines of therapy and used significantly more outpatient and inpatient resources resulting in higher costs versus patients with no GVHD.

Economic impact of multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Aim: Healthcare utilization and costs were compared following 25-gene panel (panel) or single syndrome (SS) testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Materials & methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients unaffected by cancer with panel (n = 6359) or SS (n = 4681) testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (01 January 2014 to 31 December 2016). Groups were determined by test type and result (positive, negative, variant of uncertain significance [VUS]). Results: There were no differences in total unadjusted healthcare costs between the panel (US$14,425) and SS (US$14,384) groups (p = 0.942). Among VUS patients in the panel and SS groups, mean all-cause costs were US$14,404 versus US$20,607 (p = 0.361) and mean risk-reduction/early detection-specific costs were US$718 versus US$679 (p = 0.890), respectively. Adjusted medical costs were not significantly different between panel and SS cohorts. Conclusion: Healthcare utilization and costs were comparable between the SS and panel tests overall and for patients with VUS.

Differences in Real-World Health and Economic Outcomes Among Patients with COPD Treated with Combination Tiotropium/Olodaterol Versus Triple Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommends combination long-acting muscarinic antagonists/long-acting beta2-agonists (LAMA + LABA) as preferred maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) after monotherapy and stepping up to triple therapy (TT; LAMA + LABA + inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) in case of further exacerbations. Restrictions on TT recommendations have primarily been driven by higher pneumonia risk associated with regular ICS use. Evidence suggests that TT is overprescribed, which may affect economic and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare health plan-paid costs, COPD exacerbations, and pneumonia diagnoses among patients newly treated with a LAMA + LABA regimen composed of tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) in a fixed-dose combination inhaler (TIO + OLO) or TT in a U.S. Medicare Advantage Part D insured population. METHODS: This retrospective study identified COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years who were initiating TIO + OLO or TT (index regimen) between January 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018, from a national administrative claims database. Continuous insurance coverage for 12 months pretreatment (baseline) and ≥ 30 days posttreatment (follow-up) was required. Patients were followed until the earliest of study end (May 31, 2018), discontinuation of index regimen (≥ 60-day gap in index regimen coverage), switch to a different regimen, or health plan disenrollment. Before analysis of outcomes, TIO + OLO and TT patients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, COPD medication use, medical resource use, and costs. Cohort differences in post-match outcomes were assessed by Wald Z-test (annualized costs) and Kaplan-Meier method (time to first COPD exacerbation and pneumonia diagnosis). RESULTS: After matching, each cohort had 1,454 patients who were well balanced on baseline characteristics. Compared with TT, the TIO + OLO cohort incurred $7,041 (41.1%) lower mean COPD-related total costs ($10,094 vs. $17,135; P < 0.001); cohort differences in the medical component ($3,666 lower for TIO + OLO) were driven by lower mean acute inpatient costs ($3,053 lower for TIO + OLO). Combined mean COPD plus pneumonia-related medical costs were $5,212 (39.0%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT ($8,209 vs. $13,421; P = 0.006), and total mean all-cause costs were $9,221 (30.4%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT ($21,062 vs. $30,283; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis found longer time to first severe COPD exacerbation (P = 0.020) and first pneumonia diagnosis (P = 0.002) for TIO + OLO versus TT and a lower percentage of TIO + OLO patients experiencing these events (severe COPD exacerbation: 9.0% vs. 16.1%; pneumonia: 14.5% vs. 19.3%). A secondary analysis, which expanded the TIO + OLO cohort to include any LAMA + LABA regimen, had similar findings for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients initiating TIO + OLO incurred lower costs to health plans and experienced fewer COPD exacerbation and pneumonia events relative to TT. These findings provide important real-world economic and clinical insight into the GOLD recommendations for TIO + OLO and LAMA + LABA therapy. The study findings also indicate the continued inconsistency between the recommendations and real-world clinical practices pertaining to TT. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI). Palli and Franchino-Elder are employees of BIPI. Frazer, DuCharme, Buikema, and Anderson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with acute graft-versus-host disease following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

PURPOSE: The contribution of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) to healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has not been extensively investigated. The objective of this study was to estimate both inpatient and outpatient HCRU and costs associated with acute GVHD during the 100-day and 1-year periods after allogeneic HCT in the USA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims from the Optum® Research Database of patients aged ≥ 12 years who received HCT between 2010 and 2016 was conducted. Costs and HCRU among patients with acute GVHD and no GVHD were compared during the 100-day (acute GVHD, n = 723; no GVHD, n = 385) and 360-day (acute GVHD, n = 445; no GVHD, n = 227) periods after HCT. RESULTS: Patients with acute GVHD had significantly more (P < 0.001) mean office visits (47 vs 32), hospital outpatient visits (71 vs 35), and inpatient stays (2.8 vs 1.1) than patients with no GVHD during 360 days post-HCT; similar findings were observed over the 100-day period. Mean total all-cause costs were significantly higher (P < 0.001) for patients with acute GVHD versus no GVHD during both post-HCT periods (100-day, $316,458 vs $215,229; 360-day, $466,720 vs $263,568). Additional factors associated with increased 360-day costs included young age (12-17 years; P < 0.001) and peripheral blood as graft source (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Acute GVHD was associated with significant HCRU and costs in the first 100 days of transplant, increasing over the first year post-HCT. Inpatient care was the primary driver, but outpatient care and related costs were also increased.

Costs, exacerbations and pneumonia after initiating combination tiotropium olodaterol versus triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Aim: To compare health plan-paid costs, exacerbations and pneumonia outcomes for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating combination tiotropium olodaterol (TIO + OLO) versus triple therapy (TT: long-acting muscarinic antagonist + long-acting ß2 agonists + inhaled corticosteroid). Patients & methods: COPD patients initiating TIO + OLO or TT between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2016 were identified from a managed care Medicare database and balanced for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting before assessment of outcomes. Results: Annual COPD-related and all-cause costs were US$4118 (35%) and US$5384 (23%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT (both p ≤ 0.001). TIO + OLO patients had nearly half the severe exacerbations (8.3 vs 15.5%; p = 0.014) and pneumonia was also less common (18.9 vs 30.9%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: TIO + OLO was associated with improved economic and COPD health outcomes versus TT.

Real-world comparison of treatment patterns and effectiveness of albiglutide and liraglutide.

AIM: To compare medication adherence, discontinuation and glycemic control in patients receiving albiglutide versus liraglutide. PATIENTS & METHODS: Administrative claims data and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) results were analyzed from a sample of adult health plan members with Type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Patients were matched 1:1 in the albiglutide (n = 2213) and liraglutide (n = 2213) overall cohorts and in 244 patients with HbA1c results from each treatment group. Mean HbA1c change from baseline was -1.0% for both groups. At 6 months, mean ± standard deviation adherence was 0.69 ± 0.29 versus 0.64 ± 0.29 (p < 0.001), and discontinuation was 33.2 versus 37.8% (p = 0.002) with albiglutide versus liraglutide, but these were not statistically or clinically different at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Similar treatment patterns and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c were observed for both treatments in this real-world comparison.

External validation of a multivariable claims-based rule for predicting in-hospital mortality and 30-day post-pulmonary embolism complications.

BACKGROUND: Low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients may be candidates for outpatient treatment or abbreviated hospital stay. There is a need for a claims-based prediction rule that payers/hospitals can use to risk stratify PE patients. We sought to validate the In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) prediction rule for in-hospital and 30-day outcomes. METHODS: We used the Optum Research Database from 1/2008-3/2015 and included adults hospitalized for PE (415.1x in the primary position or secondary position when accompanied by a primary code for a PE complication) and having continuous medical and prescription coverage for ≥6-months prior and 3-months post-inclusion or until death. In-hospital and 30-day mortality and 30-day complications (recurrent venous thromboembolism, rehospitalization or death) were assessed and prognostic accuracies of IMPACT with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 47,531 PE patients were included. In-hospital and 30-day mortality occurred in 7.9 and 9.4 % of patients and 20.8 % experienced any complication within 30-days. Of the 19.5 % of patients classified as low-risk by IMPACT, 2.0 % died in-hospital, resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 95.2 % (95 % CI, 94.4-95.8) and 20.7 % (95 % CI, 20.4-21.1). Only 1 additional low-risk patient died within 30-days of admission and 12.2 % experienced a complication, translating into a sensitivity and specificity of 95.9 % (95 % CI, 95.3-96.5) and 21.1 % (95 % CI, 20.7-21.5) for mortality and 88.5 % (95 % CI, 87.9-89.2) and 21.6 % (95 % CI, 21.2-22.0) for any complication. CONCLUSION: IMPACT had acceptable sensitivity for predicting in-hospital and 30-day mortality or complications and may be valuable for retrospective risk stratification of PE patients.