Treatment patterns and predictors of costs among patients with migraine: evidence from the United States medical expenditure panel survey

Documentation of International Classification of Headache Disorders Criteria in Patient Medical Records: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine headache diagnosis and treatment patterns in the outpatient setting, focusing on documentation of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort data were collected from electronic medical records of adults aged 18-35 who presented to resident-staffed family medicine outpatient clinics in the Midwest, USA, for a new or worsening headache between 2015 and 2016. Diagnosis codes were used to summarize the overall nature and prevalence of headaches. A random subset of 30 patients each for migraine headache (MGH) with and without aura and tension-type headache (TTH) were reviewed to determine how many of the five possible ICHD criteria were documented. Demographics/clinical characteristics, ICHD criteria, number and type of medications, and healthcare utilization (imaging, primary and emergency department care) through one year following the initial visit were summarized and compared across headache types.

RESULTS

There were 716 unique patients during the study period (414 MGH, 227 unspecified headaches, 75 TTH, or others). Complete ICHD criteria were documented for two patients in total. There was partial documentation (e.g., one to four of the possible five) for 30% of TTH, 63% of MGH without aura, and 77% of MGH with aura (p<0.05). Across headache types, patients were prescribed an average of 2.3 to 3.3 medications over one year, with MGH patients generally trying more medications (up to eight for those with aura and up to 12 for those without). Abortive or rescue medications were prescribed to nearly all patients; prophylactics were prescribed for 50% of MGH with aura, 66.7% of MGH without aura, and 53.3%. Non-pharmacologic interventions were less prescribed: 33.3% of TTH patients and 3.3% of MGH types combined (p<0.05). Healthcare utilization was highest for MGH with aura (ED visits) and without aura (clinic visits) patients compared to TTH (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Headache-related documentation is often incomplete, which may limit interpretation and associations between diagnoses, prescribing patterns, and healthcare utilization. Future studies should evaluate the use of electronic medical records (EMR)-based templates to improve documentation, and additional detailed studies are needed in the local setting to determine whether treatment, including the use of non-pharmacologic and prophylactic methods of treatment, is optimal.

Rimegepant, Ubrogepant, and Lasmiditan in the Acute Treatment of Migraine Examining the Benefit-Risk Profile Using Number Needed to Treat/Harm

OBJECTIVES

To develop and compare benefit-risk profiles for rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published clinical trials.

METHODS

A fixed-effects Bayesian NMA of randomized controlled trials of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine were used to determine risk differences for efficacy and safety outcomes of the 3 treatments compared with pooled placebo. Risk differences were used to calculate number needed to treat (NNT) for pain relief and pain freedom at 2 and 2 to 24 hours and freedom from most bothersome symptoms at 2 hours; and number needed to harm (NNH) for dizziness and nausea, relative to placebo.

RESULTS

Results were based on 5 randomized controlled trials (NCT03461757, NCT02828020, NCT02867709, NCT02439320, and NCT02605174). NNT to achieve sustained pain relief at 2 to 24 hours was lowest for rimegepant 75 mg (5; 95% credible interval [Crl]: 4, 7) and ubrogepant 100 mg (5; 95% Crl: 4, 8) and highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (8; 95% Crl: 5, 16). Rimegepant had the lowest NNT to achieve sustained pain freedom at 2 to 24 hours and lasmiditan 50 mg had the highest (7; 95% Crl: 5, 12 vs. 26; 95% Crl: 13, 95). NNH for dizziness and nausea was highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (28; 95% Crl: 15, 62 and 99; 95% Crl: -2580, 2378, respectively). Lasmiditan 200 mg had the lowest NNH for dizziness and rimegepant 75 mg had the lowest NNH for nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-risk profiles of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant may improve clinical decision-making.

Changes in acute headache medication use and health care resource utilization: Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating galcanezumab in adults with treatment-resistant migraine (CONQUER)

BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine, particularly with multiple prior preventive treatment failures, often have high rates of acute headache medication use and are at risk for overuse (acute or symptomatic headache medication use between 10 and 15 days per month [depending on the medication] for > 3 months). Furthermore, these patients have greater health care resource utilization (HCRU). OBJECTIVE: To examine acute headache medication use and HCRU with galcanezumab compared with placebo in a population with multiple prior migraine preventive treatment failures. METHODS: In the 3-month double-blind phase, patients with episodic or chronic migraine and treatment failures to 2 to 4 standard-of-care migraine preventive categories (lack of effectiveness or safety/tolerability) received galcanezumab 120 mg/month (following a 240-mg loading dose) or placebo; an optional 3 month open-label phase followed. Acute headache medication use (monthly days with acute headache medication utilization) was self-reported daily. The change from baseline in monthly days with acute headache medication used a mixed-model repeated measures analysis. HCRU was reported at baseline (for the previous 6 months) and at monthly visits. Migraine-related HCRU rates were evaluated in the total population per 100 patient-years. RESULTS: Of the 462 patients (galcanezumab n=232, placebo n=230), baseline mean days/month of acute headache medication was 12.3; 44.8% had acute headache medication overuse. Across months 1-3, least squares (LS) mean reductions in acute headache medication use were greater for the galcanezumab group (4.2) compared with placebo (0.9); the LS mean difference was 3.4 (95% CI = 2.7-4.1; P < 0.0001). Greater reductions in the galcanezumab group were observed as early as month 1; statistical separation continued at months 2 and 3 (all P < 0.0001). During the open-label phase, reductions from baseline ranged from 4.7 to 5.3 days and were similar in patients who transitioned from placebo to patients continuing galcanezumab. Reductions from baseline of migraine-specific health care visits (double-blind phase) were numerically greater with galcanezumab than placebo (215.5 vs 155.3). Patients switching to galcanezumab had reductions (212.9 days) similar to patients continuing galcanezumab (222.6 days). Migraine-specific emergency department visits decreased by two-thirds at month 3 in the galcanezumab group compared with nearly no reduction in the placebo group that experienced a similar reduction during the open-label phase. For both groups, migraine-specific hospitalizations were less than 2 per 100 patient-years. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that galcanezumab has the potential to reduce acute headache medication use and overuse and HCRU in patients with prior migraine preventive treatment failures. DISCLOSURES: Data were presented in part as a poster presentation at the 14th European Headache Congress (European Headache Federation), Virtual Meeting, July 3-5, 2020. Dr Ambrosini is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly and Company and received honorarium from Teva, Novartis, and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Estemalik is on the advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, and Allergan and the speakers' bureau for Teva, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Company, Allergan, and Biohaven. He received consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Teva, Lundbeck, and Allergan and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly and Company, Allergan, Biohaven, Teva, and Lundbeck. Dr Pascual received research support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministry of Economy, Spain. He was also on advisory boards for Allergan, Amgen-Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company, and Stendhal and received consulting fees or honoraria from Allegan, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis-Amgen, and Teva. Dr Rettiganti is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company and/or one of its subsidiaries, Indianapolis, IN. She is also a minor stock and restricted stockholder of Eli Lilly and Company. Mr. Stroud and Ms. Day are employees of Eli Lilly and Company and/or one of its subsidiaries, Indianapolis, IN. Dr Ford is an employee of and holds stock of Eli Lilly and Company and/or one of its subsidiaries, Indianapolis, IN. She also received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly and Company.

Direct cost and healthcare resource utilization of patients with migraine before treatment initiation with calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies by the number of prior preventive migraine medication classes

OBJECTIVE

This study compared all-cause direct cost and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among preventive migraine medication (PMM)-naïve patients and patients with up to 3 PMM category switches before initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the IBM Marketscan database. Patients who initiated injectable CGRP mAbs between May 2018 and December 2019 (index period) were included in 4 groups based on the number of prior non-CGRP PMM classes used during the 24-month pre-index period: P0 = none; P1 = one; P2 = two; P3 ≥ three. All-cause direct cost and HCRU for groups were compared without adjustment and after generalized propensity score (GPS) matching.

RESULTS

Of the 23,288 patients included (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 45.4 ± 12.0 years), 85.6% were females, and the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0.69 ± 1.2. P3 group had the highest average annual unadjusted total healthcare costs per patient ($50,274±$76,629); the highest costs attributed to procedure/imaging-related expenses ($20,105±$36,401) and pharmacy ($11,633±$29,763). P0 group had the lowest cost ($25,288±$41,427). Pairwise comparison of GPS matched costs showed significantly greater average annual direct costs per patient in the P3 group vs. P0 (p = .003), P1 (p = .014), and P2 (p = .021) groups. GPS matched HCRU also increased with the number of prior PMM classes used. Anti-epileptics (48.9%) were the most commonly used PMM class, with triptans (75.2%) being the most common acute medication class.

CONCLUSIONS

Total direct healthcare cost and HCRU increased significantly with increasing use of PMM classes with the greatest cost difference existing between the P0 and the P3 groups.

Comparative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the objective of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare the relative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan in adults with acute migraine. Outcomes included sustained pain freedom and -relief 2-48 hours post-dose, and adverse events. No RCTs were identified that directly compared these interventions. Therefore, a fixed-effects Bayesian NMA was conducted by identifying a connected (via comparison to placebo) network of RCTs.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were identified as follows: rimegepant study 303 (n = 1,466), ubrogepant ACHIEVE I and II (n = 1,672 and n = 1,686, respectively), and lasmiditan SAMURAI and SPARTAN (n = 2,231 and n = 3,005, respectively). Efficacy outcomes (pain freedom and relief at 2, 24, 48 hours) tended to be highest for lasmiditan 200 mg and rimegepant followed lower doses of lasmiditan and all doses of ubrogepant. However, lasmiditan 200 mg was also associated with higher rates of adverse events, particularly somnolence and dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant all performed significantly better than placebo with respect to pain freedom and pain relief. Efficacy results were similar for rimegepant and lasmiditan with rimegepant having higher rates of pain freedom and relief than lower doses of lasmiditan, while somnolence and dizziness outcomes were lower for rimegepant than higher doses of lasmiditan.

Understanding the migraine treatment landscape prior to the introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors: Results from the Assessment of TolerabiliTy and Effectiveness in MigrAINe Patients using Preventive Treatment (ATTAIN) study

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US.

METHODS

Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real-world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns.

RESULTS

From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females (n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white (n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority (n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% (n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% (n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% (n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% (n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen-based products (n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans (n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate (n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta-blockers (n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6-month follow-up period, almost half of patients (n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment (n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses (n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued (n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses (n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued (n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses (n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.

Contemporary relationship between medical expenditures and quality of life among adults with epilepsy in the United States

AIMS

Epilepsy exacts substantial adverse economic and quality of life (QoL) costs. Clarifying the quantitative and qualitative relationships between total and out-of-pocket (OOP) healthcare expenditures and QoL could shed insights into how they influence each other, and have done so over recent times.

METHODS

We used the Medical Expenditure Household Components 2003-2014 to identify a total of 2450 adults with epilepsy, representing a weighted population of 1,942,413. Quality of life was assessed using the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) derived from the Short-form 12 Version 2 (SF-12 V2), converted into quartiles of equal distribution, with higher quartiles indicating a better QoL. We computed unadjusted mean and adjusted (through a generalized linear model (GLM)) total and OOP healthcare expenditures by QoL categories among adults with epilepsy (reported as dollars in 2016).

RESULTS

The pooled estimates of total healthcare expenditures decreased as PCS and MCS quartiles of QoL increased [PCS: costs for quartile 1 = $21,792 (95% confidence interval (CI): $18,416-$25,168 vs. costs for quartile 4 = $6057 (95% CI: $4648-$7466) and MCS: costs for quartile 1 = $19,040 (95% CI: $15,544-$22,535) vs. quartile 4 = $12,939 (95% CI: $8450-$17,429)]. Similarly, the pooled estimates of OOP healthcare expenditures and QoL were inversely related [PCS: costs for quartile 1 = $1849 (95% CI: $1583-$2114) vs. costs for quartile 4 = $948 ($709-$1187) and MCS: costs for quartile 1 = 1812 (95% CI: $1483-2141) vs. quartile 4 = $1317 (95% CI: $982-$1652)]. The association between QoL and total and OOP healthcare expenditures was unchanged after adjusting for socioeconomic and healthcare system related confounders in the GLM. Overall, healthcare expenditures were stable across years independently of the QoL; only OOP expenditures decreased between 2003-2006 and 2011-2014 for quartile 1 of PCS and MCS.

CONCLUSION

Quality of life and OOP health expenditures are independently and inversely related to each other among adults with epilepsy. Over the decade studied in the United States, there was a decrease in OOP health expenditures among those patients with epilepsy with the lowest QoL, possibly reflecting a rise in insurance coverage after the Affordable Care Act.

Humanistic and economic burden of depression and anxiety among adults with migraine: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are well-recognized comorbid health conditions among adults with migraine due to their humanistic and economic burden. This review was conducted to systematically assess the humanistic and economic burden of comorbid depression and/or anxiety disorder among adults with migraine.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE and CINAHL via EBSCO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via OVID. Studies evaluating the humanistic burden and the economic burden of comorbid depression and anxiety among adults with migraine that were published in peer-reviewed English language journals from inception until January 2020 were included.

RESULTS

Out of the 640 identified articles, 23 studies were found eligible and included in this review. Regarding the humanistic burden, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was examined by 11 studies, 7 studies examined disability, while 2 studies evaluated both HRQoL and disability measures. These studies reported an association between depression and/or anxiety and lower HRQoL and higher disability among adults with migraine. Regarding the economic burden, only three studies were identified and all concluded that depression and/or anxiety are significantly associated with higher healthcare expenditures and utilization among adults with migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review highlight the substantial burden of depression and/or anxiety for adults with migraine. Healthcare providers need to identify and treat anxiety and depression for patients living with migraine.

The effectiveness and value of novel acute treatments for migraine

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Identifying Outcome Measures for Migraine Value-Based Contracting Using the Delphi Method

OBJECTIVE

To identify meaningful migraine outcome measures among key stakeholders to inform value-based contracts for migraine medications.

BACKGROUND

Value-based contracts linking medication payments to predefined performance metrics aim to promote value through aligned incentives and shared risk between manufacturers and payers. The emergence of new and expensive pharmaceuticals for migraine presents an opportunity for value-based contract development. However, uncertainty remains around which outcomes are most meaningful to all migraine stakeholders.

METHODS

This study utilized a Delphi survey to incorporate views from 82 stakeholders, including patients (n = 21), providers (n = 23), payers (n = 10), employers (n = 18), and pharmaceutical company representatives (n = 10). A list of 15 migraine-related outcomes was created from a literature review and subject matter expert consultation. Stakeholders reported on the value of these outcomes through a 5-point Likert scale and selection of their top 3 most meaningful outcomes. All participants except patients and employers also used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the feasibility of collecting each outcome measure. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement on the importance and feasibility of an outcome (Likert scores ≥4/5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful).

RESULTS

After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved for importance of 9 outcomes on the Likert scale. "Decrease in migraine frequency" reached 100% agreement (82/82), followed by "increased ability to resume normal activities" (96%, 79/82). When asked to choose the 3 most meaningful outcomes, stakeholders selected "decrease in migraine frequency" (88%, 72/82) followed by "decrease in migraine severity" (80%, 66/82). The 2 measures rated as most feasibly collected were "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" (95%, 40/42) and "decrease in migraine frequency" (90%, 38/42). There were statistically significant differences between non-patient and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [20% (12/61) vs 0% (0/21), P = .031]; and employer and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in work days missed" [44% (8/18) vs 5% (1/21), P = .006] and "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [22% (4/18) vs 0% (0/21), P = .037] as most meaningful outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The measures "decrease in migraine frequency" followed by "decrease in migraine severity" were identified as top priority migraine outcome measures.

Acupuncture reduced the medical expenditure in migraine patients: Real-world data of a 10-year national cohort study

OBJECTIVES

According to the data of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, almost all the countries got increased medical expenditures in these years. Among the diseases, migraine is a condition that affects predominantly young and middle-aged people. It results in great economic losses. So we perform this research to investigate the acupuncture effect of reducing medical expenditure and medical resources use.

PERSPECTIVE

Acupuncture is a non-pharmacologic treatment and it became popular in recent years. In Taiwan, about 13% migraine patients visited acupuncture doctor. We hypothesized that the acupuncture had the additional effect than the medical treatment.

SETTING

We analysed the economic cost and medical visits in the real word.

METHODS

We used national cohort data from Taiwan, retrospectively gathered between 2000 and 2010. We selected newly diagnosed migraine patients who were diagnosed by registered neurologists formally licensed by the Taiwan Neurological Society. We divided these patients into two groups: with and without acupuncture treatment. The main outcome was medical expenditures and visits within 1 year after acupuncture.

RESULTS

In migraine patients who received acupuncture treatment, medical expenditures on emergency care and hospitalization were significantly lower than the group without acupuncture treatment.

CONCLUSION

According to our real-world data, acupuncture can reduce the medical expenditure in migraine patients within 1 year after diagnosis. For the health policy maker, it is cost effective to encourage combining acupuncture and western medicine to treat migraine patients. For the doctors in routine clinical practice, who may consider to consult acupuncture doctors to deal with the migraine patients together.

Health Care Use and Spending of Pediatric Patients With an Intellectual or Developmental Disability

BACKGROUND

Health care costs and utilization for those with an intellectual or developmental disability (IDD) have been shown to be higher than the general population.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the services that contribute to higher costs and utilization among noninstitutionalized children with an IDD.

DESIGN

Matched case-control secondary analysis of the 2000-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Pediatric (age 0-21) patients with an IDD were matched to non-IDD subjects. Health care utilization and costs were evaluated with zero-inflated negative binomial regressions and generalized linear models, respectively.

MEASURES

Outcome measures included high-acuity health care utilization [ie, emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions], and cost outcomes for total spending, ED use, hospitalization, medications, office visits, home health, and physical therapy.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in utilization of EDs among the 2 groups though subjects with an IDD showed more hospitalizations than their matched cohort (incidence rate ratios=1.63, P=0.00). Total health care spending was higher among patients with an IDD (coefficient=$5831, P=0.00). Pediatric spending was higher in all measures except for ED. The biggest discrepancies in spending were seen in home health (coefficient=$2558, P=0.00) and outpatient visits (coefficient=$1180, P=0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric patients with an IDD had higher health care spending and utilization than non-IDD subjects in all categories except for ED use.