Relative Cost Differences of Initial Treatment Strategies for Newly Diagnosed Opioid Use Disorder: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relative costs of care among treatment options for opioid use disorder (OUD) are unknown. METHODS: We identified a cohort of 40,885 individuals with a new diagnosis of OUD in a large national de-identified claims database covering commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees. We assigned individuals to 1 of 6 mutually exclusive initial treatment pathways: (1) Inpatient Detox/Rehabilitation Treatment Center; (2) Behavioral Health Intensive, intensive outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Services; (3) Methadone or Buprenorphine; (4) Naltrexone; (5) Behavioral Health Outpatient Services, or; (6) No Treatment. We assessed total costs of care in the initial 90 day treatment period for each strategy using a differences in differences approach controlling for baseline costs. RESULTS: Within 90 days of diagnosis, 94.8% of individuals received treatment, with the initial treatments being: 15.8% for Inpatient Detox/Rehabilitation Treatment Center, 4.8% for Behavioral Health Intensive, Intensive Outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Services, 12.5% for buprenorphine/methadone, 2.4% for naltrexone, and 59.3% for Behavioral Health Outpatient Services. Average unadjusted costs increased from $3250 per member per month (SD $7846) at baseline to $5047 per member per month (SD $11,856) in the 90 day follow-up period. Compared with no treatment, initial 90 day costs were lower for buprenorphine/methadone [Adjusted Difference in Differences Cost Ratio (ADIDCR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.80], naltrexone (ADIDCR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.67), and behavioral health outpatient (ADIDCR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.66). Costs were higher for inpatient detox (ADIDCR 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.83). CONCLUSION: Improving health system capacity and insurance coverage and incentives for outpatient management of OUD may reduce health care costs.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with HIV-1 who switched first-line antiretroviral therapy.

Objectives: This study compared healthcare utilization and costs associated with switching the first-line protease inhibitor (PI) or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) based antiretroviral (ARV) regimen due to reasons other than virologic failure among patients with HIV-1. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees in two US administrative claims databases. The study population comprised adults with HIV-1 infection initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) on PI- or NNRTI-containing regimens from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2015. Patients with a subsequent change in anchor agent were assigned to the switch cohort; the non-switch cohort was constructed using propensity score matching of three non-switching patients for each patient in the switch cohort. Patient characteristics and per patient per month healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared between the cohorts during the pre-switch, switch (15 days before and after switching) and post-switch periods. Costs during the switch period were also estimated with a multivariable-adjusted model. Results: The matched study population consisted of 1204 patients who switched their first-line PI- or NNRTI-based regimen and 3612 patients who did not. Compared with the non-switch cohort, patients who switched had higher healthcare resource utilization during the pre-switch, switch and post-switch periods. Mean unadjusted non-ART costs in the switch cohort were nearly double ($2944 versus $1530, p < .001), more than double ($2562 versus $1215, p < .001) and 1.5 times higher ($1473 versus $968, p < .001) than costs in the non-switch cohort in the pre-switch, switch and post-switch periods, respectively. Conclusions: Patients with HIV-1 who initiated PI- or NNRTI-based regimens and switched ARTs for reasons other than virologic failure used more healthcare resources and incurred greater costs relative to patients in the non-switch cohort. This study highlights the importance of initiating patients on appropriate first-line ART to avoid the need to switch due to reasons other than virologic failure.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dapagliflozin versus sitagliptin.

AIMS: To compare healthcare costs and utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated dapagliflozin (DAPA) with costs and utilization in those who initiated sitagliptin (SITA) in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of health plan enrollees in two US commercial claims databases or Medicare Part D. The study population comprised adult patients with T2D who initiated DAPA or SITA between January 1, 2014 and April 30, 2015. DAPA and SITA initiators were propensity-score-matched, and healthcare utilization and costs during the 1-year follow-up period were compared. Analyses were conducted separately for patients with evidence of oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) monotherapy use at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2722 patients were included in each matched cohort. Follow-up unadjusted all-cause costs ($16 065 and $17 281; P = 0.135) and diabetes-related costs ($9697 and $9354; P = 0.539) were similar in the DAPA and SITA cohorts. Higher office and outpatient visit costs in the SITA group were offset by higher pharmacy costs in the DAPA group. In the subgroup of 1804 patients with OAD monotherapy use at baseline, patients in the SITA group had higher total all-cause costs compared with those in the DAPA group ($14 884 vs. $12 353; P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Patients who initiated DAPA or SITA had similar all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare costs over 1 year of follow-up. In the subgroup of patients treated with OAD monotherapy at baseline (84% metformin monotherapy), those who initiated DAPA as add-on therapy had lower costs than patients who added SITA.

Herpes zoster incidence and cost in patients receiving autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplant.

OBJECTIVE: Among patients receiving autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (Auto-HSCT), this study estimated the incidence of herpes zoster (HZ), compared healthcare costs among patients with and without HZ, and evaluated antiviral prophylaxis (AP) use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using data from a large health plan to identify patients ≥18 years with ≥1 claim for an Auto-HSCT procedure during 2006-2011 (n = 2,530). Patients were followed from date of Auto-HSCT until risk-end date, defined as development of HZ, end of enrollment, death, or December 31, 2011. HZ incidence was calculated as cases observed after Auto-HSCT, divided by accrued time-at-risk in person-years (PY). AP use and duration were defined by prescription fills. One-year medical and pharmacy costs were calculated as combined health plan and patient paid amounts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: HZ incidence and healthcare costs were calculated using administrative claims data. RESULTS: Overall HZ incidence was 62.2/1,000 PY (95% CI = 54.3-70.9). Most (72.3%) patients were prescribed AP. During the first 90-days post-Auto-HSCT, patients without AP had increased incidence (151.6/1,000 PY, 95% CI = 88.3-242.6) compared to those prescribed AP pre- (30.9/1,000 PY, 95% CI = 11.3-67.2) or post-Auto-HSCT (33.0/1,000 PY, 95% CI = 13.3-67.9). Total adjusted mean 1-year all-cause healthcare costs were $74,875 for patients who developed HZ and $70,279 for patients who did not (difference = $4,596 (cost ratio = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.86-1.32, p = .566)). CONCLUSIONS: HZ incidence was high, despite AP use. Mean annual healthcare costs were higher for patients with HZ, but the difference was not statistically significant. An effective vaccine against HZ could be useful in decreasing both incidence of and cost for HZ in this population.

Healthcare utilization and costs among patients with herpes zoster and solid tumor malignancy on chemotherapy: A retrospective cohort study.

Immunosuppressed patients with solid tumor malignancies (STMs) are particularly vulnerable to herpes zoster (HZ). This study estimated the incidence of HZ and evaluated healthcare resource utilization and costs for persons with STM receiving chemotherapy with and without incident HZ.We conducted a retrospective claims study of adults with STM receiving chemotherapy between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2014. Patients were followed from their first chemotherapy date through development of HZ, health plan disenrollment, the study end date, or 24 months. HZ incidence was calculated and stratified by patient characteristics. Adjusted HZ incidence was estimated using Poisson regression. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared between patients with HZ (cases) and propensity score-matched controls without HZ during a variable follow-up period. Adjusted healthcare costs were estimated using Lin regression to control for informative censoring.Of 155,480 patients with STM receiving chemotherapy, 3100 (2.0%) developed HZ, yielding an adjusted HZ incidence rate of 13.8/1000 person-years (PY). HZ cases (n = 3004) had significantly higher healthcare resource utilization than matched controls (n = 15,020). Adjusted annual costs were $48,077 for cases vs $41,645 for matched controls, corresponding to a differential cost of $6432 annually.After adjustment for potential confounders, patients with STM receiving chemotherapy had an HZ incidence of 13.8/1000 PY; those who developed HZ used more healthcare resources and incurred higher costs than those who did not. These findings suggest that HZ prevention by vaccination could improve outcomes and reduce costs in this population.

Longitudinal treatment patterns among US patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or familial hypercholesterolemia initiating lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The most recent American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association guidelines recommend high-dose statin therapy for most patients with confirmed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and patients with high cardiovascular risk. There is limited information regarding long-term treatment patterns among these patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine longitudinal treatment modifications in patients with ASCVD or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). METHODS: This retrospective analysis of administrative claims data identified patients initiating statin or ezetimibe therapy between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2012, who had evidence of ASCVD or FH. Patients were followed for up to 3 years and up to 4 treatment episodes. After initial treatment, subsequent treatment episodes began on the date of a treatment modification, which included discontinuation, statin dose change, switching, and augmentation. RESULTS: A total of 92,621 patients (mean age 64.7 years, 57.3% male) were identified; 91,740 had ASCVD, 937 had FH (56 had both). Most ASCVD (89.6%) and FH (85.8%) patients initiated on statin monotherapy. The most common treatment modification in the first treatment episode was discontinuation (ASCVD: 42.0%; FH: 58.4%); among patients who discontinued, most reinitiated therapy (70.5% of ASCVD, 76.8% of FH). Most ASCVD (68.2%) and FH (71.1%) patients initiated on moderate-dose statins; statin dose increase occurred in 10.3% of ASCVD and 18.5% of FH patients in the first episode. CONCLUSION: Among patients with high cardiovascular risk, most initiated on moderate-dose statins with infrequent uptitration. In light of the recent American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association guidelines, statin initiation practices will need to change to ensure appropriate therapy for high-risk patients.

Persistence and compliance among U.S. patients receiving pazopanib or sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: For first-line therapy options for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), clinical trials have demonstrated similar efficacy for pazopanib and sunitinib as well as differing side-effect profiles, which may affect patient persistence in self-administration of these oral medications. However, the treatment patterns of each drug in real-world clinical practice, as opposed to the controlled environment of a trial, have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVE: To compare persistence and compliance (adherence) with pazopanib versus sunitinib in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective claims analysis using 2 databases: Optum Research Database and Impact National Benchmark Database. Eligible patients included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with ≥ 2 RCC diagnoses and evidence of first-line therapy with ≥ 1 subsequent pharmacy claim for pazopanib or sunitinib between October 2009 and July 2012. The date of the first pazopanib or sunitinib claim was defined as the index date. Additional requirements included continuous enrollment in the health plan for 2 months prior (baseline period) through 6 months after (follow-up period) the index date and no cancers other than those associated with RCC. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias. Persistence with the index drug was compared using days to discontinuation, estimated level of persistence (ELPT) at 180 days, and proportion of days covered (PDC). PDC was defined by dividing the number of days covered with the index drug by the number of follow-up days. Compliance was estimated using medication possession ratio (MPR). For matched cohort pairs with > 1 fill, MPR was defined by dividing the number of days covered with the index drug by the number of days between the first and last index medication fill. RESULTS: We identified 84 matched pairs among 97 patients prescribed pazopanib and 349 prescribed sunitinib. Among the matched population, mean comorbidity index score was 5.8 (95% CI = 1.8-6.0) for pazopanib, and 6.1 (95% CI =1.8-6.0) for sunitinib (P = 0.133). Evidence of any radiation therapy during the baseline period was significantly higher among the sunitinib cohort prior to matching (9% vs. 18%, P = 0.043), and evidence of surgery was higher in the pazopanib cohort after matching (12% vs. 7%, P = 0.046). Cohorts were balanced according to demographic and clinical characteristics with mean (SD) age of 63.0 (9.0) years and 77.4% male. During the 6-month period after drug initiation, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) by drug cohort in the duration of index drug therapy or the percentage of patients who discontinued their index drugs. The mean (SD) time to discontinuation was 133.4 (62.8) days and 139.9 (55.6) days among the matched pazopanib and sunitinib cohorts, respectively (P = 0.445). In both cohorts, more than 40% of patients discontinued their index drugs (46.4% pazopanib and 44.1% sunitinib, P = 0.732). In addition, there was no significant difference by drug cohort in the ELPT at any time examined between 30 and 180 days after initiation of therapy. PDC with the index drug during the fixed 6-month follow-up was also examined. Although the mean PDC was significantly higher among the sunitinib cohort (0.77 vs. 0.68 for pazopanib, P = 0.037), there was no difference by cohort in the percentage of patients with high PDC (defined as ≥ 80%): 52.4% versus 56.0% for pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively (P = 0.622). Mean MPR among matched pairs with at least 2 fills for the index drug was significantly higher among the sunitinib cohort, although there was no difference by cohort in the percentage of patients with high MPR (defined as ≥ 80%): 81.4% versus 93.2% for pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively (P > 0.071). CONCLUSIONS: In the first 6 months of treatment, persistence and compliance to pazopanib and sunitinib were similar. Future studies are needed, including those assessing larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods.