Relative vaccine efficacy of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines in preventing probable influenza in a Medicare Fee-for-Service population.

BACKGROUND: High-dose (HD) influenza vaccine, currently the most commonly used vaccine among US seniors (aged ≥ 65 years), has been shown to be more efficacious than standard-dose (SD) vaccine in multiple randomized trials. This study evaluated the real-world relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of HD vs SD over four influenza seasons. METHODS: This study included Medicare Fee-for-Service enrollees who received HD or SD at an outpatient clinic or pharmacy during influenza seasons 2011-2012 through 2014-2015. Probable influenza (an inpatient stay with an influenza diagnosis on the claim, or an outpatient visit with a rapid influenza test/culture followed by an antiviral prescription) was assessed among HD recipients matched 1:1 with SD recipients by location, vaccination date, age, and sex. Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models with competing risk of death were used to adjust for residual confounding. Analyses were stratified by outpatient vs pharmacy vaccination. RESULTS: Across the four influenza seasons, there were 535,598, 1,017,552, 1,548,164, and 2,420,450 in the pharmacy cohort; and 821,662, 1,151,080, 1,559,488, and 2,421,758 in the outpatient cohort. During peak influenza season, rVEs for 2011-12 through 2014-15 were 21.8% (95% CI: -5.9%, 42.3%), 14.8% (9.3%, 19.9%), 16.9% (9.2%, 23.9%), and 17.2% (14.5%, 19.9%), respectively, in the pharmacy cohort; and 16.5% (-5.9%, 34.2%), 15.1% (10.9%, 19.1%), 10.0% (2.9%, 16.6%), and -0.2% (-3.0%, 2.5%), respectively, in the outpatient cohort. CONCLUSION: HD was consistently associated with better protection against probable influenza. The lower treatment effect observed in the outpatient cohort could reflect provider bias due to physicians triaging HD to frailer patients.

The effect of delaying initiation with umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: an observational administrative claims database analysis using marginal structural models.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high clinical and economic burden. Optimal pharmacological therapy for COPD aims to reduce symptoms and the frequency and severity of exacerbations. Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is an approved combination therapy for once-daily maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. This study evaluated the impact of delaying UMEC/VI initiation on medical costs and exacerbation risk. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with COPD who initiated UMEC/VI between 4/28/2014 and 7/31/2016 was conducted using the Optum Research Database. The index date was the first COPD visit after UMEC/VI available on US formulary (Commercial 4/28/2014; Medicare Advantage 1/1/2015). Patients were followed for 12 months post-index, and categorized into 12 cohorts corresponding to month (30-day period) of UMEC/VI initiation (i.e. Months 1-12) post-index. The outcomes studied during the follow up period included COPD-related and all-cause medical costs, and risk of COPD exacerbations. Marginal structural models (MSM) were used to control for time-varying confounding due to changes in treatment and severity during follow up. RESULTS: 2,200 patients initiating UMEC/VI were included in the study sample. Patients' average age was 69.3 years, 49.9% were female and 69.7% were Medicare insured. Following MSM analysis, 12-month adjusted COPD-related medical costs increased by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-5.9%; p = 0.044) for each monthly delay in UMEC/VI initiation, with a 37.4% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI in Month 12 versus Month 1 ($13,087 vs. $9524). The 12-month adjusted all-cause medical costs increased by 2.8% (95% CI: 0.6-5.2%; p = 0.013) for each monthly delay, with a 36.1% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI at Month 12 versus Month 1 ($22,766 vs. $16,727). The monthly risk of severe exacerbation was significantly higher in patients who had not yet initiated UMEC/VI than those who had (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.35-2.23; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prompt use of UMEC/VI following a physician visit for COPD appears to result in economic and clinical benefits, with reductions in medical costs and exacerbation risk. Additional research is warranted to assess the benefits of initiating UMEC/VI as a first-line therapy compared with escalation to UMEC/VI from monotherapies.

A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Utilization and Costs of Biologic Therapies and JAK Inhibitor Therapy Across Four Common Inflammatory Indications in Adult US Managed Care Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic therapies are used to treat several inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data from a commercial claims database were used to evaluate utilization and cost of biologic treatment for these conditions. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Optum Research Database. Patients were aged 18-63 years with diagnosis of moderate to severe RA, PsO, PsA, and/or AS and first (index) claim for biologics abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab, or ustekinumab or non-biologic tofacitinib between March 1, 2011 and February 28, 2013. One-year treatment costs were based on observed paid amounts and used to impute dosing. Treatment patterns (persistence, switching, discontinuing, restarting) were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 20,159 patients were analyzed for index medications abatacept (n = 583), adalimumab (n = 6521), certolizumab pegol (n = 415), etanercept (n = 9116), golimumab (n = 231), infliximab (n = 1906), rituximab (n = 295), tocilizumab (n = 165), ustekinumab (n = 922), and tofacitinib (n = 5). For patients with RA only, costs were lowest for tofacitinib ($18,769), rituximab ($19,569), or abatacept ($21,877), and ranged from $23,682 to $30,269 for all other medications. For patients with PsO only, costs were lowest for adalimumab ($29,186), etanercept ($31,212), and infliximab ($32,409) compared with ustekinumab ($53,746). For patients with PsA only, costs were lowest for etanercept ($26,916), followed by golimumab ($27,987), adalimumab ($28,749), and infliximab ($31,974). Costs were lowest with etanercept for RA plus PsA ($25,477) and for PsO plus PsA ($29,376), and with golimumab for AS only ($24,225). Across indications, annual costs were $29,521, $27,488, and $28,672 for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, respectively; persistence was greatest with infliximab (range 66-79%) compared with 11-59% for all other biologics. CONCLUSION: One-year treatment costs varied considerably between medications and indications. Some newly approved agents had lower costs but further research is needed to confirm these estimates as more patients are treated. FUNDING: Immunex (a wholly owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc.) and Wyeth (acquired by Pfizer).

Comparison of Real-world Outcomes Between Patients Treated with Tapentadol ER or Oxycodone CR.

Background: The objective of this study was to compare health care utilization and costs between matched cohorts of chronic pain patients treated with the opioids tapentadol extended release (ER) or oxycodone controlled release (CR). Methods: This retrospective study used claims data from the Optum Research Database. Commercial and Medicare Advantage adult patients with ≥1 prescription fill for oxycodone CR or tapentadol ER between September 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012 were eligible. The date of the first observed oxycodone CR or tapentadol ER claim was the index date. Patients had continuous health plan enrollment for 6 months before and after the index date, ≥ 90 days supply of opioid therapy, and no index drug claims in the preindex period. Patients were propensity score matched in a 1:2 ratio (tapentadol ER : oxycodone CR). Results: The attributes of the matched cohorts (1,120 tapentadol ER and 2,240 oxycodone CR patients) appeared similar. In the 6 month post-index period, lower proportions of the tapentadol ER cohort than the oxycodone CR cohort had ≥1 inpatient stay (14.6% versus 20.5%; p<0.001) and ≥1 emergency department visit (33.4% versus 37.5%; p=0.021). The tapentadol ER compared with the oxycodone CR cohort had higher mean pharmacy costs ($4,263 versus $3,694; p <0.001), lower mean inpatient costs ($3,625 versus $6,309; p<0.001), and lower mean total healthcare costs ($16,510 versus $19,330; p=0.004). Conclusions: During follow-up, total mean healthcare costs were lower among tapentadol ER patients than oxycodone CR patients, and tapentadol ER patients were less likely to have an inpatient admission or emergency department visit.