Relationship between buprenorphine adherence and relapse, health care utilization and costs in privately and publicly insured patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for opioid use disorder is important because of the negative health, societal and economic consequences of illicit opioid use, but treatment adherence can be a challenge. This study assessed the association between buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment (MAT) adherence and relapse, health care utilization and costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with opioid use disorder who were newly initiating a buprenorphine MAT regimen were identified in the 2008-2014 MarketScan® Commercial and Medicaid Databases and followed for 12 months after their earliest outpatient pharmacy claim for buprenorphine. Adherence was categorized using proportion of days covered (PDC) with buprenorphine, and patients with PDC≥0.80 were classified as adherent. Descriptive and adjusted analyses compared relapse prevalence, utilization and costs, all measured in the 12 months following buprenorphine MAT initiation, of adherent patients to patients in non-adherent PDC categories (PDC<0.20, 0.20≤PDC<0.40, 0.40≤PDC<0.60, 0.60≤PDC<0.80). RESULTS: Adherent patients were 37.1% of the Commercial sample (N=16,085) and 41.3% of the Medicaid sample (N=5,688). In both samples, non-adherent patients were significantly more likely than adherent patients to relapse and to have hospitalizations and emergency department visits. As a result, as buprenorphine MAT adherence increased, pharmacy costs increased, but medical costs decreased. Total costs (pharmacy plus medical costs) in the 12 months following buprenorphine MAT initiation decreased with adherence in Commercial patients ($28,525 for PDC<0.20 to $17,844 for PDC≥0.80). A slight decrease in total costs in the 12 months following buprenorphine MAT initiation was also observed in Medicaid patients ($21,292 for PDC<0.20 to $18,621 for PDC≥0.80). After adjustment, total costs of adherent patients in the Commercial sample ($17,519) were significantly lower compared with those of non-adherent patients (range $20,294-$24,431). In the Medicaid sample, adjusted total costs were not significantly different between adherence groups. CONCLUSION: Buprenorphine MAT adherence in the 12 months following treatment was associated with reduced odds of relapse and reduced unadjusted medical costs. For Commercial patients who were adherent to treatment, the adjusted total costs were predicted to be 30% lower than those for patients with PDC<0.20.

Development and validation of a claims-based approach to proxy ECOG performance status across ten tumor groups.

AIM: To develop a claims-based prediction model of poor performance status (PS) in commercially insured and Medicare supplemental beneficiaries with cancer. PATIENTS & METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted of electronic medical records (EMR) from community oncology practices linked to MarketScan claims. Multivariable logistic regression predicted PS scores from the EMR using claims-based diagnostic and procedure codes. RESULTS: The study included 8442 patients diagnosed with cancer from 2007 to 2015. Overall, 8.1% of patients had poor EMR-based PS. Bootstrapping results from the final model showed sensitivity and specificity of approximately 75% with a predicted probability cutpoint = 0.078, c-statistic = 0.821 and pseudo-R2 = 0.25. CONCLUSION: Patients with poor PS can be identified in claims data. This prediction model enables future studies evaluating cancer treatments and outcomes to account for PS.

Treatment Patterns and Associated Health Care Costs Before and After Treatment Initiation Among Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple treatment options, the prognosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) remains poor. PAH patients experience a high economic burden due to comorbidities, hospitalizations, and medication costs. Although combination therapy has been shown to reduce hospitalizations, the relationship between treatment, health care utilization, and costs remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To provide a characterization of health care utilization and costs in real-world settings by comparing periods before and after initiating PAH-specific treatment. METHODS: This retrospective study identified PAH patients in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases between 2010 and 2014 who initiated treatment with endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE-5Is), or soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators. The index date was the date of the first PAH pharmacy claim. We included patients with ≥ 2 medical claims with diagnoses for PAH (ICD-9-CM: 416.0, 416.8) or PAH-related conditions and continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits for the 6 months before and after the index date. Treatment patterns were assessed at the drug class level (ERAs, PDE-5Is, sGC stimulators, and prostacyclins) from outpatient pharmacy claims during the 6-month post-index period. All-cause and PAH-related utilization and costs were measured. McNemar's and paired t-tests were used to compare patients' health care resource utilization and costs in the 6-month pre- and posttreatment periods. RESULTS: A total of 3,908 patients met the selection criteria. The study sample was 63% female with a mean age of 63 ± 15 years. Only 5% of patients began initial combination therapy for PAH, defined as claims for ≥ 2 medication classes within the first 30 days of treatment. Treatment interruption (≥ 30-day gap in days supply) of any PAH-specific medication was observed in 38% of patients. Compared with the 6-month pre-index period, the proportion of patients in the 6-month post-index period with any inpatient admission decreased, 42% versus 30% (P < 0.001). In addition, PAH-related inpatient admissions decreased in the 6-month post-index period from 7% to 3% (P < 0.001). After treatment initiation, patients' nonpharmacy medical costs decreased from $48,200 (SD = $117,686) to $33,962 (SD = $90,294; P < 0.001), mainly attributable to reduced inpatient costs. However, total average medical costs including pharmacy costs remained comparable after treatment initiation (pre-index period = $51,455 vs. post-index period = $53,923; P = 0.213). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that while patients' PAH-related pharmacy costs increased after treatment initiation, the increase was offset by reduced inpatient utilization; therefore, total health care costs remained constant. While the majority of patients in this study were treated with monotherapy, the recently completed AMBITION study indicated that initial combination therapy with ambrisentan plus tadalafil reduced PAH-related hospitalizations compared with initial monotherapy with either of these agents. Future cost analyses of patients treated with combination therapy will be required to determine the economic effect of initial combination therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored and funded by Gilead Sciences. Ozbay is an employee of Gilead Sciences. At the time that this project and manuscript were developed, Lazarus was an employee of Gilead Sciences and may own stock/stock options. Riehle, Montejano, and Lenhart are employees of Truven Health Analytics, an IBM company, which received funding from Gilead Sciences to conduct this study. Burger and White do research with, and are paid consultants for, Gilead Sciences; they do not own equity and received no personal compensation for the work here. Burger also reports consultancy and advisory board work for Actelion Pharmaceuticals and grants from Gilead Sciences, Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, and United Therapeutics.

Characteristics and treatment patterns of US commercially insured and Medicaid patients with opioid dependence or abuse.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the demographic and clinical characteristics of commercially insured and Medicaid patients with a diagnosis of opioid dependence or abuse and to describe the pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments received by these patients. DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational study using de-identified administrative claims data. SETTING: The analysis included commercially insured and Medicaid patient data extracted from the Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial and Medicaid Databases. PATIENTS: Patients with a diagnosis of opioid dependence or abuse from 2008 to 2014 (earliest diagnosis = index date) and a minimum of 6 months of pre-index and postindex continuous enrollment in the database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, medication-assisted treatment (MAT), and treatment other than MAT received following diagnosis, and the clinical practice setting in which patients received any opioid dependence-related care were reported. RESULTS: Data from commercially insured (N = 103,768) and Medicaid (N = 50,552) patients were analyzed. Common comorbid conditions included chronic pain (48.6 percent Commercial, 56.8 percent Medicaid), depressive disorder (24.0 percent Commercial, 32.8 percent Medicaid), and other substance abuse disorders (13.3 percent Commercial, 23.7 percent Medicaid). Nearly one third of both Commercial (31.6 percent) and Medicaid (33.6 percent) patients did not have any claims for psychosocial therapy or MAT during the follow-up period. Only 24.3 percent of Commercial patients and 20.4 percent of Medicaid patients had evidence of claims for both MAT and psychosocial treatment anytime following diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there are opportunities to improve care through comprehensive and coordinated treatment for opioid dependence/abuse. Policies aimed at improving treatment access may be warranted.

Costs and Resource Utilization Among Medicaid Patients with Schizophrenia Treated with Paliperidone Palmitate or Oral Atypical Antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to antipsychotic therapy among patients with schizophrenia is a key driver of relapse, which can lead to costly inpatient stays. Long-acting injectables (LAIs) may improve adherence, thus reducing hospitalizations, but inpatient cost reductions need to be balanced against higher drug acquisition costs of LAIs. Real-world evidence is needed to help quantify the economic value of oral atypical antipsychotics compared with LAIs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare healthcare costs and resource utilization between once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP) and oral antipsychotic therapy (OAT) in a population of Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was performed using Truven Health MarketScan Medicaid claims data from 2009 to 2012. Marginal structural modeling, a form of weighted repeated measures analysis to control for differences between cohorts and time-varying confounding, was used to estimate monthly costs of care in 2012 US dollars and resource utilization over a 12-month period for patients in each cohort. RESULTS: While per-month mental-health prescription costs were US$1019 higher in the PP cohort, approximately 55 % of this premium was offset by lower inpatient and outpatient care costs, producing a mean monthly total cost differential of US$434 (95 % CI 298-569, p < 0.0001) for all-cause costs and US$463 (95 % CI 374-552, p < 0.0001) for mental-health-related costs. Use of PP also resulted in a 0.44 and 0.47 reduction in the odds of all-cause and mental-health-related hospitalizations and a 0.09 reduction in the odds of all-cause emergency department visits (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p = 0.0134, respectively) over the 12-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with long-acting injectable antipsychotics, such as PP, may reduce inpatient and outpatient healthcare services utilization and associated costs. These findings also suggest that patients with schizophrenia taking once-monthly PP may stand a lower risk of hospitalization than patients on OAT.

Real-World Dosing Patterns of Atomoxetine in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

AIMS: The aim was to investigate the dosing patterns of atomoxetine monotherapy in adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a retrospective analysis. METHODS: Adult (≥ 18 years) patients with ADHD newly initiated on atomoxetine with ≥ 1 outpatient pharmacy claim for atomoxetine between January 2006 and December 2011 were selected from the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Commercial database. After a 30-day titration period, dosing patterns of atomoxetine monotherapy were analyzed in the 12 months following initiation. In addition, patient demographic and clinical characteristics were compared to identify characteristics associated with suboptimal versus recommended dosing. RESULTS: Of the 12,412 adult patients with ADHD newly initiated on atomoxetine, 4548 (36.6%) were suboptimally dosed, whereas 3323 (26.7%) were treated at recommended dose. Overall, study patients were treated at a mean (standard deviation [SD]) dose of 68.5 (44.9) mg/day. The suboptimal dosing cohort included significantly more females (54% vs. 44%, P < 0.001) and had fewer patients with pre-index use of other ADHD medications (17% vs. 20%, P < 0.001) compared with the recommended dosing cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients with ADHD receiving atomoxetine therapy in a real-world setting are often dosed suboptimally. Increasing the awareness on optimal dosing strategy among clinicians and patients is warranted to maximize the therapeutic benefits of atomoxetine among adult patients with ADHD.

Medication-assisted treatment with methadone: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Detoxification followed by abstinence has shown little success in reducing illicit opioid use. Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) helps individuals with an opioid use disorder abstain from or decrease use of illegal or nonmedical opiates. This review examined evidence for MMT's effectiveness. METHODS: Authors reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and individual studies of MMT from 1995 through 2012. Databases searched were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress. The authors rated the level of evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness and examined maternal and fetal results of MMT for pregnant women. RESULTS: The review included seven randomized controlled trials and two quasi-experimental studies of MMT, indicating a high level of evidence for the positive impact of MMT on treatment retention and illicit opioid use, particularly at doses greater than 60 mg. Evidence suggests positive impacts on drug-related HIV risk behaviors, mortality, and criminality. Meta-analyses were difficult to perform or yielded nonsignificant results. Studies found little association between MMT and sex-related HIV risk behaviors. MMT in pregnancy was associated with improved maternal and fetal outcomes, and rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome were similar for mothers receiving different doses. Reports of adverse events were also found. CONCLUSIONS: MMT is associated with improved outcomes for individuals and pregnant women with opioid use disorders. MMT should be a covered service available to all individuals.

Health care costs in US patients with and without a diagnosis of osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a chronic and costly condition affecting 14% of adults in the US, and has a significant impact on patient quality of life. This retrospective cohort study compared direct health care utilization and costs between patients with osteoarthritis and a matched control group without osteoarthritis. METHODS: MarketScan(®) databases were used to identify adult patients with an osteoarthritis claim (ICD-9-CM, 715.xx) in 2007, and the date of first diagnosis served as the index. Patients were excluded if they did not have 12 months of continuous health care benefit prior to and following the index date, were aged <18 years, or lacked a second diagnosis code for osteoarthritis between 15 and 365 days pre-index or post-index. Osteoarthritis patients were matched 1:1 to patients without osteoarthritis for age group, gender, geographic region, health plan type, and Medicare eligibility. Multivariate analyses were conducted to assess for differences in utilization and costs, controlling for differences between cohorts. RESULTS: The study sample included 258,237 patients with osteoarthritis and 258,237 matched controls without osteoarthritis. Most patients were women and over 55 years of age. Patients with osteoarthritis had significantly higher pre-index rates of comorbidity than controls. Mean total adjusted direct costs for osteoarthritis patients were more than double those for the control group at US$18,435 (95% confidence interval [CI]: US$18,318-US$18,560) versus US$7494 (95% CI: US$7425-US$7557). Osteoarthritis patients incurred significantly higher inpatient costs at US$6668 (95% CI: US$6587-US$6744) versus US$1756 (95% CI: US$1717-US$1794), outpatient costs at US$7840 (95% CI: US$7786-US$7902) versus US$3675 (95% CI: US$3637-US$3711), and prescription drug costs at US$3213 (95% CI: US$3195-US$3233) versus US$2245 (95% CI: US$2229-US$2262) compared with the controls. CONCLUSION: The direct health care costs of osteoarthritis patients were over two times higher than those of similar patients without the condition. The primary drivers of the cost difference were comorbidities and inpatient costs.

Healthcare costs associated with osteoarthritis in US patients.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a chronic debilitating condition affecting many adults in the United States. This study was to compare pharmacologic treatments and costs for newly diagnosed and existing osteoarthritis patients to assess unmet medication treatment needs and economic burden. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of de-identified medical and pharmacy insurance claims from the MarketScan(®) databases identified adult patients with an osteoarthritis claim in 2007. The date of the first osteoarthritis claim in 2007 served as the index. Patients were stratified into newly diagnosed and existing cohorts, based on the presence of osteoarthritis claim(s) over the 12-month pre-index period. Utilization of pain-related medications and healthcare costs was assessed in the 12-month postindex period. Multivariate analysis was conducted to adjust costs controlling for cross-cohort differences. RESULTS: Newly diagnosed osteoarthritis patients (n = 134,584) were younger (66.0 vs. 68.0, P < 0.001), had a higher proportion of men (37.4% vs. 33.9%, P < 0.001) but lower rates of comorbidities than existing patients (n = 123,653). Significantly higher proportions of newly diagnosed patients had an inpatient admission and outpatient office visit. Higher proportions of existing patients utilized a majority of the medication classes examined. Total adjusted osteoarthritis-related costs for newly diagnosed patients were $6,811 annually (95% confidence interval [CI] $6,743 to $6,887), compared to $6,407 (95% CI $6,327 to $6,477) for existing patients. Costs of pain-related prescription drugs associated with osteoarthritis were $965 (95% CI $955 to $975) among new patients, less than the $1,117 (95% CI $1,107 to $1,129) among existing patients. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed osteoarthritis patients incurred higher annual costs, but lower pain-related prescription drug costs in the year following diagnosis than patients with existing osteoarthritis.

Effects of naltrexone treatment for alcohol-related disorders on healthcare costs in an insured population.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of treatment with oral naltrexone on healthcare costs in patients with alcohol-related disorders. METHODS: Using data from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database for 2000-2004, we identified a naltrexone group (with an alcohol-related diagnosis and at least one pharmacy claim for oral naltrexone) and two control groups. Alcohol controls had an alcohol-related diagnosis and were not prescribed an alcoholism treatment medication. Nonalcohol controls had no alcohol-related diagnosis and no prescription for an alcoholism treatment medication. The control groups were matched three to one to the naltrexone group on demographic and other relevant measures. Healthcare expenditures were calculated for the 6-month periods before and after the index naltrexone drug claim (or matched date for controls). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare the groups on key characteristics and on healthcare costs. RESULTS: Naltrexone patients (n = 1,138; 62% men; mean age 45 +/- 11 years) had significantly higher total healthcare expenditures in the pre-index period than either of the control groups. In the postindex period, naltrexone patients had a significantly smaller increase than alcohol controls in total alcohol-related expenditures. Total nonalcohol-related expenditures also increased significantly less for the naltrexone group than for the alcohol control group. Multivariate analyses showed that naltrexone treatment significantly reduced alcohol-related, nonalcohol-related, and total healthcare costs relative to alcohol controls. CONCLUSIONS: Although prior to treatment patients with alcohol-related disorders had higher healthcare costs, treatment with oral naltrexone was associated with reductions both in alcohol-related and nonalcohol-related healthcare costs.

Comparison of healthcare utilization among patients treated with alcoholism medications.

OBJECTIVES: To determine in a large claims database the healthcare utilization and costs associated with treatment of alcohol dependence with medications vs no medication and across 4 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications. STUDY DESIGN: Claims database analysis. METHODS: Eligible adults with alcohol dependence claims (n = 27,135) were identified in a commercial database (MarketScan; Thomson Reuters Inc, Chicago, Illinois). Following propensity score-based matching and inverse probability weighting on demographic, clinical, and healthcare utilization variables, patients who had used an FDA-approved medication for alcohol dependence (n = 2977)were compared with patients who had not (n =2977). Patients treated with oral naltrexone hydrochloride(n = 2064), oral disulfiram (n = 2076), oral acamprosate calcium (n = 5068), or extended-release injectable naltrexone (naltrexone XR) (n = 295) were also compared for 6-month utilization rates of alcoholism medication, inpatient detoxification days, alcoholism-related inpatient days, and outpatient services, as well as inpatient charges. RESULTS: Patients who received alcoholism medications had fewer inpatient detoxification days (706 vs 1163 days per 1000 patients, P <.001), alcoholism-related inpatient days (650 vs 1086 days, P <.001), and alcoholism-related emergency department visits (127 vs 171, P = .005). Among 4 medications, the use of naltrexone XR was associated with fewer inpatient detoxification days (224 days per 1000 patients) than the use of oral naltrexone (552 days, P = .001), disulfiram (403 days, P = .049), or acamprosate (525 days, P <.001). The group receiving naltrexone XR also had fewer alcoholism-related inpatient days than the groups receiving disulfiram or acamprosate. More patients in the naltrexone XR group had an outpatient substance abuse visit compared with patients in the oral alcoholism medication groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who received an alcoholism medication had lower healthcare utilization than patients who did not. Naltrexone XR showed an advantage over oral medications in healthcare utilization and costs.

Impact of real-world ziprasidone dosing on treatment discontinuation rates in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between maximum dose of ziprasidone and time to discontinuation in the treatment of schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder in clinical practice. METHOD: The 2001-2006 MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Databases were analyzed for maximum ziprasidone doses achieved in patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder. Ziprasidone maximum-dose groups were defined as low (20-60 mg/d), medium (61-119 mg/d), or high (120-160 mg/d). Patients receiving >160 mg/d were excluded. Mean time to discontinuation was evaluated across propensity score-matched dosing groups. Cox proportional hazard models were used to adjust for confounding when comparing the high- and medium-dose groups with the low-dose group. RESULTS: Data were available for 33,340 patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, of whom 16.6% received low dose of ziprasidone, 22.0% medium dose, and 61.4% high dose. Of those subjects with bipolar disorder (n=27,751), 26.1% were receiving a low dose of ziprasidone, 25.7% a medium dose, and 48.3% a high dose. Among the propensity score-matched dosing groups, the respective mean time to discontinuation for low, medium, and high doses was 90.5, 117.2, and 201.6d within the schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder cohort and 84.6, 110.7, and 173.2d within the bipolar cohort (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). The hazard ratios for discontinuing therapy were significantly lower for the medium- (0.84, 0.84) and high-dose (0.57, 0.60) groups relative to the low-dose group in schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorders receiving ziprasidone 120-160 mg/d experienced a statistically significant lower discontinuation rate compared with those receiving lower doses.

Factors affecting detoxification readmission: analysis of public sector data from three states.

The objective of this study was to understand the rate of detoxification readmissions and the factors associated with readmission within a public sector population. The study sample was drawn from an integrated database that includes Medicaid and state mental health and substance abuse agency data from three states (Delaware, Oklahoma, and Washington) for 1996-1998. Clients with at least one state agency-sponsored detoxification event in 1996 or 1997 were included in the study. Twenty-seven percent of the sample was readmitted for detoxification within 1 year of their index detoxification. Clients who received two or more substance-abuse-related services within 30 days of their index detoxification were less likely to be readmitted and had a longer time until their second detoxification admission. Detoxification readmission is common in the public sector. Engaging patients in treatment following detoxification may reduce readmission rates and time to readmission.