Treatment Journey From Diagnosis to the Successful Implementation of a Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Agent in Young Adults With Schizophrenia.

Objective: Long-acting injectable antipsychotic agents (LAIs) are effective in schizophrenia relapse prevention but are often underutilized. This study aims to understand treatment patterns leading to a successful LAI implementation following schizophrenia diagnosis in a large dataset that included commercially insured patients in the United States.Methods: Patients aged 18-40 years with a first schizophrenia diagnosis (per ICD-9 or ICD-10 criteria), successful second-generation LAI implementation (defined a priori as ≥ 90 consecutive days of use), and ≥ 1 second-generation oral antipsychotic agent (OA) were identified from IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. Outcomes were measured descriptively.Results: Of 41,391 patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia, 1,836 (4%) received ≥ 1 LAI; 202 (< 1%) met eligibility criteria of successful LAI implementation following ≥ 1 second-generation OA. Median (range) time between diagnosis and first LAI was 289.5 (0-2,171) days, time between LAI initiation and successful implementation was 90.0 (90-1,061) days, and time to LAI discontinuation after successful implementation was 166.5 (91-799) days. Before LAI initiation, 58% received ≥ 2 OAs. For 86% with successful LAI implementation, the implementation was accomplished with the first LAI.Conclusions: In this dataset of mainly commercially insured patients, LAI use in early-phase schizophrenia was very low (4%). For the majority for whom a LAI was successfully implemented per a priori definition, the implementation was accomplished with the first LAI and in a short period of time (90 days). However, even when LAIs were used in early-phase schizophrenia, they were generally not the first therapy, as most patients had several prior OA treatments.

Predictors for Initiation of Atypical Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Agents in a Commercial Claims Cohort of Individuals With Early-Phase Schizophrenia.

Objective: Long-acting injectable antipsychotic agents (LAIs) have improved clinical effectiveness and adherence versus oral antipsychotic agents (OAs); however, a minority of individuals with schizophrenia are treated with LAIs compared with OAs. This cohort study aimed to evaluate predictors of initiation of atypical LAIs among patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia in the United States.Methods: Using claims data from IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2020, adults with first diagnosis of schizophrenia, ≥ 1 OA claim following diagnosis, and continuous benefits were identified. To evaluate predictors of LAI initiation, a Cox proportional hazard regression model per independent predictors and main outcome (ie, LAI initiation) was performed.Results: Of 3,639 patients with early-phase schizophrenia, 369 (10%) had ≥ 1 LAI claim(s) after ≥ 1 OA claim(s). Several factors present prior to LAI initiation were significantly (P < .0001) predictive of LAI initiation: greater monthly OA switches (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 11.39 [7.01-18.51]), unsuccessful OA implementation (3.09 [2.39-3.98]), greater monthly schizophrenia-related hospitalizations (20.83 [14.22-30.51]), and greater monthly schizophrenia-related emergency department visits (4.13 [2.07-8.22]).Conclusions: In this analysis of pharmacy claims records for patients with early-phase schizophrenia, results suggest that LAIs are used less frequently in the early phase than reported in later stages. Their initiation is often reactive to relapse or disease exacerbation, rather than proactive as a relapse-prevention tool for early-phase schizophrenia. These data highlight the underuse of LAIs, particularly in the early phase when they could make the most difference.

Early versus late administration of long-acting injectable antipsychotic agents among patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia: an analysis of a commercial claims database.

This study was designed to assess healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia based on timing and context of long-acting injectable antipsychotic agent (LAI) initiation. Using claims data, patients (aged 18-40 years) with first schizophrenia diagnosis January 2013-September 2019 (index date), no LAI or oral antipsychotic agent claims during 12-month preindex period, and continuous benefit enrollment from 12 months before index date to 12 months after first LAI administration were identified. Patients were grouped based on timing [early (≤1 year after index date) vs. late] and circumstances [reactive (after schizophrenia-related event) vs. proactive] of LAI initiation. Of 1290 patients with at least one LAI claim, 306 met criteria for early ( n = 204; reactive, n = 107; proactive, n = 97) and late ( n = 102; n = 75; n = 27) initiation. HCRU and costs were numerically lower in early versus late groups, and significantly lower for proactive initiation in both groups. Comparing worst-case (late-reactive) and best-case (early-proactive) scenarios, the average annual cost difference was $7195.13 ( P = 0.0233), with major drivers being emergency department ($171.28; P < 0.05) and other outpatient ($2845.73; P < 0.00001) visits. In addition to the clinical advantages previously described in the literature, the proactive use of LAIs in early-phase schizophrenia is associated with lower healthcare costs.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany.

PURPOSE: We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Assessment of rituximab-abbs, a biosimilar, and rituximab outcomes in patients with CLL or NHL: A real-world UK study.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) treatment is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Rituximab-abbs (first biosimilar approved in 2017) is expected to significantly reduce healthcare economic burden due to lower acquisition costs. This non-interventional, non-comparative study assessed real-world effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab-abbs and rituximab in treatment-naive patients with CLL or NHL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Via an online physician survey, 46 UK-registered hematologists and oncologists retrospectively reported on randomly selected patients aged ≥18 years with CLL or NHL with rituximab-abbs or rituximab as first-line immunotherapy. Overall, 201 patient charts were examined across 4 cohorts: rituximab-abbs in CLL, rituximab-abbs in NHL, rituximab in CLL, rituximab in NHL. RESULTS: Demographic profiles across cohorts were similar. Most patients (94 %-100 %) received combination therapy (rituximab-abbs or rituximab mainly with chemotherapy). For both treatments, overall response rate (94 %-98 %) and 1-year overall survival (98 %-100 %) were very high for patients with CLL or NHL. Most common serious adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia and infusion reactions. The majority of patients (54 %-66 %) did not experience a grade ≥3 adverse event. Healthcare resource utilization was similarly high across cohorts, driven by diagnostic testing, oncologist office visits, and day-case hospital admissions; many patients required supportive medical therapies. Mean annual savings of ∼£1000/patient driven by acquisition costs occurred with rituximab-abbs versus rituximab, administration costs were similar. CONCLUSION: Rituximab-abbs and rituximab demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability in treating CLL and NHL in routine UK clinical practice and demonstrate the utility of the biosimilar as a cost-saving alternative treatment.

Retrospective Claims Analysis of Treatment Patterns, Relapse, Utilization, and Cost Among Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Initiating Second-Line Disease-Modifying Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Real-world studies of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) have reported suboptimal adherence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe treatment patterns, relapses, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in MS patients experiencing their first observed DMT switch. METHODS: In this retrospective, claims database study, adult patients were selected if they had an MS diagnosis and DMT claim during the study period (1 January 2009-31 March 2019). Patients who switched to a new DMT between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2018 were included. Adherence, persistence, relapses, and all-cause and MS-related healthcare utilization and costs were reported pre- and post-index. RESULTS: In total, 1554 MS patients were identified; the mean age was 46 years and most (74%) were female. The majority of patients switched from an injectable DMT (n = 1116; 71.8%), and patients generally switched to an oral DMT (n = 878; 57%). Among patients who switched DMTs, 46.0% (n = 715) were nonadherent, 42% (n = 645) were nonpersistent, and 21.5% (n = 334) relapsed in the 12 months post-switch. An increase in all-cause and MS-related healthcare costs was observed pre- to post-index for all patients. Cost drivers included outpatient visit costs and pharmacy prescriptions. Compared with patients who switched to an injectable DMT, those who switched to an oral DMT had significantly higher persistence and adherence. No significant difference was observed in post-index relapse or all-cause and MS-related total cost of care. CONCLUSION: Low adherence and poor persistence remain following an initial DMT switch; however, patients who switched to oral DMTs had higher persistence and adherence.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabling disease that is treated with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Little is known about how patients with MS take their medication, how disease progression may change with treatment, or what the impact of switching to a new DMT is on the cost of care. In an analysis of commercially insured individuals, patients with MS were examined before and after switching to a new DMT. Results showed that the patients most often switched from an injectable medication to an oral DMT; however, a large proportion of patients did not take the prescription as directed by their physician. Additionally, a large proportion of patients did not stay on their new therapy. Nearly one-third of patients experienced an MS relapse after they switched to a new treatment, and healthcare costs increased following the treatment switch. A higher proportion of patients switching to an oral DMT took their medication as prescribed by their physicians, stayed on therapy, and incurred smaller increases in cost compared with patients switching to injectable medications. Despite such improvements, additional treatments are needed for patients with MS.

Switch rates and total cost associated with apremilast and biologics in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Aim: Real-world treatment data for psoriatic arthritis are limited. We evaluated switch rates, adherence, and costs for patients initiating apremilast versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and interleukin inhibitor (ILi) among biologic-naive psoriatic arthritis patients. Materials & methods: This retrospective analysis used IBM MarketScan claims data to assess treatment switches, adherence and costs. Results: Twelve-month switch rates were significantly lower for apremilast versus TNFi (15.5% vs 26.6%; p < 0.0001) and similar to ILi (15.5% vs 14.0%; p = 0.71). Apremilast initiators had lower total costs versus TNFi and ILi (US$39,854 vs US$57,243 and US$65,687; p < 0.05) and adherence was slightly lower versus TNFi and higher versus ILi. Conclusion: Biologic-naive apremilast initiators had lower switch rates versus TNFi initiators and lower total costs versus TNFi or ILi initiators.

Evaluating Treatment Patterns, Relapses, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis in DMT-Naïve Patients.

PURPOSE: Early diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) can reduce relapse number and severity, which has cost implications. We describe treatment patterns, healthcare utilization, and cost among MS patients newly initiating DMTs (index). PATIENTS AND METHODS: DMT-naïve adults with 12 months' continuous enrollment pre- and post-index and ≥2 MS claims (2009‒2018) were identified from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database. Treatment adherence and persistence were measured as time on index DMT. Relapses were identified using a validated claims-based algorithm. All-cause and MS-related healthcare expenditures and utilization were captured pre- and post-index. Outcomes were stratified by route of administration. Multivariate analyses assessed differences in outcomes and costs. RESULTS: The analysis included 5906 MS patients (mean age, 46.6 years). The majority initiated injectable (63.5%) followed by oral (28.8%) and infusion (7.7%) DMTs. Post-index, 45.3% of patients were nonadherent and 39.4% were nonpersistent. Relapse rates decreased from pre- to post-index (oral: 24.3%‒16.1%; injectable: 25.0%‒17.1%; infusion: 29.3%‒15.5%). Post-index mean (SD) all-cause total costs were lowest with oral ($70,970 [$36,681]) vs injectable ($82,521 [$58,569]) and infusion ($80,871 [$49,627]) DMTs. MS-related total costs were lowest with oral ($65,149 [$65,133]) vs injectable ($76,197 [$60,204]) and infusion ($72,703 [$47,287]) DMTs. Multivariate analysis showed no differences between oral and injectable DMTs in adherence, persistence, or relapse rate; however, oral DMTs had significantly lower all-cause and MS-related costs. CONCLUSION: With similar outcomes across DMT administration routes, initiating the least costly DMT may be warranted for many patients. In newly treated MS patients, the need exists to improve adherence and persistence.

Productivity Loss and Associated Costs Among Employed Patients Receiving Disease-Modifying Treatment for Multiple Sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the indirect burden of employed multiple sclerosis (MS) patients initiating disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in the US. METHODS: DMT-treated MS patients (DMT users) and direct-matched controls without MS (1:3) were captured using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database and the Health and Productivity Management Database between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2017. DMT users were also stratified by route of administration. Time loss and costs from absenteeism, short-term disability, and long-term disability were assessed for DMT users and matched controls. RESULTS: A total of 3022 DMT users were matched to 9066 controls. Compared with injectable DMT users, oral DMT users took twice as long to initiate therapy but had numerically lower absenteeism costs and significantly lower long-term disability costs in the first year after DMT initiation. The mean (standard deviation) indirect costs of absenteeism, short-term disability, and long-term disability were US$6474 (US$6779), US$2368 (US$5777), and US$280 (US$2578), respectively, for DMT users and US$4468 (US$3814), US$328 (US$1950), and US$36 (US$938), respectively, for controls in the first year (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Employed DMT users in the US incurred incremental increased indirect burden ($2007 in absenteeism, $2040 in short-term disability, and $244 in long-term disability) compared with matched controls. Despite evidence of delays in treatment initiation, oral DMT users had evidence of reduced work loss compared with injectable users, suggesting that open access to all treatment options may reduce the indirect burden of MS. Additional research into the impact of route of administration on the burden of long-term disability among MS patients is needed.

Treatment Patterns and Relapses Among Newly Treated Multiple Sclerosis Patients From a Retrospective Claims Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although all disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) reduce risk of relapse in multiple sclerosis (MS), many factors, including route of administration, influence selection of first-line DMT. Knowledge of real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness in reducing relapses across DMTs is important to understanding factors influencing this choice. This study sought to describe treatment patterns and relapses among newly treated adults with MS and by DMT route of administration (oral, injectable, and infusion). METHODS: IBM MarketScan research databases were used to identify MS adults newly initiating DMTs (index event) from January 1, 2011-April 1, 2016, who had 12 months of continuous preindex and postindex medical and pharmacy benefits. Newly treated patients were those with ≥2 nondiagnostic claims with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (340) or Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (G35) code and no DMT prescription claims in the 12 months' preindex. Persistence and adherence were measured from index until the earliest of ≥60 days without DMT, switching DMTs, or end of follow-up. Relapses were defined using a validated claims-based algorithm and measured in the 12-month preindex and postindex periods. Regression analysis adjusting for patient characteristics and prior relapses was used to determine the association between DMT route of administration and odds of 12-month persistence, odds of postindex relapse, and number of postindex relapses. FINDINGS: Of 9378 newly treated MS patients meeting inclusion criteria; average age was 46.7 years, and 73.3% were female. Most patients initiated an injectable (65.5%) or oral (26.1%) DMT. Relapses decreased markedly from preindex to postindex (32.9%-24.0%), which was highest among oral users (35.8%-21.6%). Patients with no (vs ≥3) relapses preindex were more likely to be relapse free postindex (81.6% vs 31.4%). Nonpersistence (39.1% overall) was lowest among oral users (33.4%) and higher among those with versus without a postindex relapse (50.6% vs 35.5%). Patients initiating oral versus injectable agents were more likely to be persistent at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; p < 0.0001) and less likely to relapse (OR, 0.75; p < 0.0001) postindex. Switches were uncommon (~10%) across cohorts. Preindex relapses were associated with increased odds of postindex relapses (OR, 1.73; p < 0.0001) but not with odds of persistence at 12 months. IMPLICATIONS: The 12-month nonpersistence rate was high among all MS patients but lower among oral users. Oral users were also less likely to relapse postindex. Despite the effectiveness of DMTs in reducing relapses, the low persistence, lack of switching to a new DMT, and continued relapses highlight an unmet need in the MS treatment landscape.

Switch Rates and Total Cost of Care Associated with Apremilast and Biologic Therapies in Biologic-Naive Patients with Plaque Psoriasis.

PURPOSE: Compare treatment switching rates and costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis used IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases to identify patients who initiated apremilast or a biologic (ie, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] or interleukin [IL] inhibitor) for psoriasis treatment between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to adjust for possible selection bias and maximize the number of patients available for analysis. Treatment switching, days to switch, and healthcare costs were assessed at 12 months. T-test and chi-square test were used to evaluate differences between cohorts for continuous and categorical variables as appropriate; Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess cost differences. RESULTS: In total, 88,025 patients newly initiated apremilast, a TNF inhibitor, or an IL inhibitor. After inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied and patients were propensity score matched, 1645 (apremilast), 1207 (TNF inhibitor), and 438 (IL inhibitor) patients were included in this analysis. Twelve-month switch rates were significantly lower for apremilast initiators compared with TNF inhibitor initiators (14% vs 25%; p<0.01) and comparable to IL inhibitors (14% vs 11%; p>0.05). No statistical difference was observed in days to switch at 12 months for any treatment group. Total healthcare costs were lower for apremilast initiators compared with TNF and IL inhibitor initiators ($34,028 vs $55,973 and $64,430; p<0.0001). Per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs were significantly lower for apremilast initiators compared with TNF inhibitor and IL inhibitor initiators ($2834 vs $4662 and $5366; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Over a 12-month follow-up, biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast had significantly lower switching rates compared with patients on TNF inhibitors and similar rates as patients on IL inhibitors. PPPM and total healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients initiating apremilast vs TNF or IL inhibitors, primarily due to lower pharmacy costs.

Real-world switch patterns and healthcare costs in biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Aim: Treatment switching and healthcare costs were compared among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics with ≥12 months pre-/post-index continuous enrollment in Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart. Methods: After propensity score matching, switch rates (new therapy post-index) and days between index and switch were assessed. Total and per-patient per-month costs by service type were assessed. Results: Apremilast initiators (n = 533) were matched and compared with biologic initiators (n = 955). Twelve-month cumulative switch rates and days to switch were similar. Apremilast initiators had significantly lower total healthcare costs than biologic initiators; apremilast switchers and nonswitchers had significantly lower per-patient per-month costs than biologic switchers and nonswitchers, driven mainly by reduced outpatient pharmacy costs. Conclusion: Apremilast initiators had lower healthcare costs even with treatment switching.

Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Initiating Second-Line Disease-Modifying Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can reduce multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse rates; however, effectiveness of treatments may vary. It is important to understand real-world treatment patterns in the context of MS relapses. We describe MS relapses related to treatment patterns among patients who switch treatment after their first DMT. METHODS: IBM MarketScan research databases were used to identify adult patients with MS who switched DMTs (index-first switch) after being newly treated with a DMT from January 2009 through March 2017, with 12 months of continuous enrollment pre- and post-index. Non-persistence was defined as discontinuing (at least 60 days without DMT) or switching DMTs. MS relapses were defined using a validated claims-based algorithm. Multivariable analysis was used to examine odds of 12-month persistence, odds of post-index relapse, and number of relapses. RESULTS: In total, 4121 patients with MS met all inclusion criteria (mean age 46.4 years; female 76.2%). Overall, 49.6% switched to an oral DMT, 36.5% to an injectable DMT, and 13.9% to an infusion DMT. Switching DMTs resulted in a 32.4% reduction in relapses between pre- and post-index. Only 54.6% of patients were persistent throughout the first year. Patients who switched to oral DMTs had 95% higher adjusted odds of persistence and 18% lower adjusted odds of a post-index period relapse than patients who switched to injectable DMTs. The number of baseline relapses was not associated with persistence but with 68% higher odds of a post-index relapse, with each additional baseline relapse associated with a 44% increase in number of post-index relapses. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with MS who switched DMTs, persistence was consistently low regardless of treatment. Although persistence with oral DMTs was slightly higher than with injectable DMTs, overall results indicate poor persistence to second-line therapy and highlight the need to improve long-term persistence with DMTs.

Treatment Switch Patterns and Healthcare Costs in Biologic-Naive Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: We compared treatment switch patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated apremilast or biologics. METHODS: A 1:2 propensity score match was used to adjust administrative claims data for adults initiating apremilast or biologics from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2016, for possible selection bias. Patients had at least 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment in the Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart database. Outcomes included switch frequency, days to switch, adherence on index treatment, and healthcare costs (total and per patient per month). Switch rate was defined as the proportion of patients who switched to a new treatment after initiation of the index treatment, and days to switch was calculated as the days between initiation of the index treatment and initiation of the new treatment. Adherence was calculated using the proportion of days covered and the medication possession ratio. The t test and chi-square, Kaplan-Meier, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to evaluate differences between the cohorts. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and switch rates were similar between the matched apremilast (n = 170) and biologic (n = 327) cohorts. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between the matched cohorts. The 12-month switch rates were similar for patients initiating apremilast versus those on biologics (17.7% vs. 25.1%, P = 0.06). This trend was similar at 6 months (7.7% vs. 13.2%, P = 0.07) and 18 months (24.4% vs. 29.3%, P = 0.33). Regardless of treatment switching, 12-month total healthcare costs were lower with apremilast versus biologics (all: $28,423 vs. $41,178, P < 0.0001; switched: $39,803 vs. $51,517, P = 0.0040; did not switch: $25,984 vs. $37,717, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Biologic-naive patients with PsA who initiated apremilast had switch rates similar to biologic users and significantly lower healthcare costs, regardless of treatment switching.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects an estimated 30% of psoriasis patients who use systemic therapy. Symptoms of PsA, such as joint swelling and tenderness, can be painful and disabling and may worsen quality of life. PsA can also impart a substantial economic burden. Treatment for moderate to severe PsA often involves the use of systemic oral medications (e.g., conventional systemic treatments such as methotrexate or targeted systemic treatments such as apremilast) or biologic therapy given by injection or infusion. Because PsA symptoms and responses to treatment can vary, patients may switch treatments over time. More research is needed to better understand how switching treatments affects healthcare costs among patients starting treatment with apremilast or a biologic for PsA. This study compared treatment switching and healthcare costs among patients with PsA who had never been treated with a biologic and who started treatment with apremilast or a biologic for PsA. Rates of treatment switching at 12 months were similar for patients starting treatment with apremilast versus those starting a biologic. Patients starting treatment with apremilast had significantly lower total healthcare costs compared with those starting a biologic, even if they later switched to a biologic. Healthcare costs calculated per patient per month (PPPM) were also lower with apremilast versus biologics, driven by lower PPPM pharmacy costs. These findings suggest that starting treatment with apremilast may be an effective and cost-effective strategy for managing PsA, even for patients who later switch to a biologic.

Treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: results from a US claims analysis.

Objective: Information on treatment costs for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can be valuable for payers and providers who make treatment and formulary decisions. This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients with PsA initiating apremilast or biologics.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. The study included biologic-naive patients with PsA who initiated treatment with apremilast or a biologic between 1 January 2014, and 31 December 2015. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.Results: In all, 125 biologic-naive patients initiating treatment with apremilast were matched to 245 biologic-naive patients initiating treatment with a biologic. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for apremilast vs. biologic users (43.2 vs. 36.7%; p = .2277). While persistent on treatment for up to 12 months, total healthcare costs (from all utilizations) were significantly lower among apremilast vs. biologic users ($28,130 vs. $37,093; p < .0001). Likewise, per-patient per-month costs while persistent on treatment were significantly lower among apremilast vs. biologic users whether they switched treatments ($2,455 vs. $3,497; p = .0103), remained persistent on treatment ($2,434 vs. $3,521; p < .0001), or discontinued but did not switch treatments ($2,178 vs. $2,696; p = .0082).Conclusions: Apremilast patients had significantly lower healthcare costs than biologic patients, even when they switched to a biologic, during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize PsA care while reducing healthcare costs.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12 months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a > 60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients' period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p = 0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12 months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p < 0.0001). Likewise, PPPM costs while persistent on therapy were significantly lower among patients initiating apremilast vs biologics, whether they switched treatments ($2,475 vs $4,422; p < 0.0001), remained persistent ($2,279 vs $3,883; p < 0.0001), or discontinued but did not switch treatments ($2,104 vs $6,294; p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.