The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

AIMS

To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010-2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept.

RESULTS

Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p < .001; RA-related: $3,364 vs $2,297, p < .001). Monthly RA-related costs were higher for patients switching to a third tDMARD compared to non-switchers remaining on their second tDMARD ($3,835 vs $3,383, p < .001). Switchers to abatacept had significantly lower RA-related monthly costs vs switchers to TNFi ($3,129 vs $3,436, p = .021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p = 0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p = .031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p = .093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p < .001) compared to switchers to abatacept.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.

All-Cause, Stroke/Systemic Embolism-, and Major Bleeding-Related Health-Care Costs Among Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulants

In this study, all-cause, stroke/systemic embolism (SE)-related, and major bleeding (MB)-related health-care costs among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) initiating treatment with different oral anticoagulants (OACs) were compared. Patients ≥65 years of age initiating OACs, including apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin, were identified from the Humana Research Database between January 1, 2013, and September 30, 2015. Propensity score matching was used to separately match the different OAC cohorts with the apixaban cohort. All-cause health-care costs and stroke/SE-related and MB-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) were compared using generalized linear or 2-part regression models. Compared to apixaban, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher all-cause health-care costs (US$2234 vs US$1846 PPPM, P < .001) and MB-related medical costs (US$106 vs US$47 PPPM, P < .001), dabigatran was associated with significantly higher all-cause health-care costs (US$1980 vs US$1801 PPPM, P = .007), and warfarin was associated with significantly higher all-cause health-care costs (US$2386 vs US$1929 PPPM, P < .001), stroke/SE-related medical costs (US$42 vs US$18 PPPM, P < .001), and MB-related medical costs (US$132 vs US$51 PPPM, P < .001). Among elderly patients with NVAF, other OACs were associated with higher all-cause health-care costs than apixaban.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of treatment with apixaban vs. other oral anticoagulants among elderly nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (S/SE) and major bleeding (MB) of elderly (≥65 years of age) nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban vs. rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin.

METHODS

NVAF patients with Medicare Advantage coverage in the US initiating oral anticoagulants (OACs, index event) were identified from the Humana database (1 January 2013-30 September 2015) and grouped into cohorts depending on OAC initiated. Propensity score matching (PSM), 1:1, was conducted among patients treated with apixaban vs. each other OAC, separately. Rates of S/SE and MB were evaluated in the follow-up. Cox regressions were used to compare the risk of S/SE and MB between apixaban and each of the other OACs during the follow-up.

RESULTS

The matched pairs of apixaban vs. rivaroxaban (n = 13,620), apixaban vs. dabigatran (n = 4654), and apixaban vs. warfarin (n = 14,214) were well balanced for key patient characteristics. Adjusted risks for S/SE (hazard ratio [HR] vs. rivaroxaban: 0.72, p = .003; vs. warfarin: 0.65, p < .001) and MB (HR vs. rivaroxaban: 0.49, p < .001; vs. warfarin: 0.53, p < .001) were significantly lower during the follow-up for patients treated with apixaban vs. rivaroxaban and warfarin. Adjusted risks for S/SE (HR: 0.78, p = .27) and MB (HR: 0.82, p = .23) of NVAF patients treated with apixaban vs. dabigatran trended to be lower, but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real-world setting after controlling for differences in patient characteristics, apixaban is associated with significantly lower risk of S/SE and MB than rivaroxaban and warfarin, and a trend towards better outcomes vs. dabigatran among elderly NVAF patients in the US.

Effect of Apixaban Versus Warfarin Use on Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Elderly Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The clinical trial ARISTOTLE showed that apixaban was superior to warfarin in reducing the risks of stroke and bleeding among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Further study of the effect of apixaban versus warfarin use on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs in the real-world setting is warranted, especially among elderly patients who are at higher risk of stroke and bleeding.

OBJECTIVE

To compare HCRU and costs among elderly NVAF patients treated with apixaban versus warfarin in the United States.

METHODS

Elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years) with Medicare coverage who initiated apixaban or warfarin were identified from the Humana research database during January 1, 2013-September 30, 2015. Patients were required to have 12 months of continuous insurance coverage before drug initiation (baseline period) and an atrial fibrillation diagnosis during the baseline period or on the date of drug initiation. NVAF patients were grouped into cohorts depending on the drug initiated. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to control for differences in demographics and clinical characteristics of study cohorts. Patients were followed after the index date for a variable length of follow-up. All-cause and disease-specific HCRU and costs during the follow-up were evaluated before and after PSM and reported as per patient per year.

RESULTS

Of the overall (unmatched) population, 8,250 patients (mean age: 78.0 years) initiated apixaban and 14,051 patients (mean age: 78.2 years) initiated warfarin. Among NVAF patients who initiated apixaban versus those who initiated warfarin, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores (3.0 vs. 3.4, P < 0.001); stroke risk scores, including CHADS₂ (2.7 vs. 2.9, P < 0.001) and CHA₂DS₂-VASc (4.6 vs. 4.7, P < 0.001); and bleeding risk scores, including HAS-BLED (3.1 vs. 3.2, P < 0.001), were lower. Additionally, total annual all-cause health care costs were lower during the baseline period for patients treated with apixaban versus warfarin ($17,077 vs. $20,236, P < 0.001). After PSM, 14,214 patients were matched, with 7,107 in each cohort. Mean age, CCI score, and stroke and bleeding risks were similar between matched cohorts, as were total all-cause health care costs during the baseline period. During the follow-up among matched cohorts, apixaban versus warfarin treatment was associated with higher annual pharmacy costs ($5,159 vs. $2,867, P < 0.001) but lower annual inpatient ($8,327 vs. $14,296, P < 0.001), outpatient ($9,655 vs. $11,469, P < 0.001), and total all-cause health care costs ($23,141 vs. $28,633, P < 0.001), which were reflective of lower inpatient, outpatient, and all-cause HCRU among apixaban-treated patients. Furthermore, bleeding-related ($2,101 vs. $3,963, P < 0.001) and stroke-related ($652 vs. $1,178, P = 0.001) annual medical costs were lower for patients treated with apixaban versus warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

After controlling for differences in patient characteristics, in the real-world setting apixaban versus warfarin use was associated with less HCRU and lower total all-cause health care costs and costs for bleeding- and stroke-related medical services, but greater pharmacy costs, among elderly NVAF patients.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Deitelzweig is a consultant for Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb and has served on their advisory boards and received speaker fees. Deitelzweig also serves as consultant and advisory board member to Portola and Janssen. Luo, Trocio, and Mardekian are employees of Pfizer and own stock in the company. Gupta and Curtice are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb and own stock in the company. Lingohr-Smith, Menges, and Lin are employees of Novosys Health, which received research funds from Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Deitelzweig, Luo, and Gupta, along with Trocio, Mardekian, Curtice, and Lin. Lin, Menges, and Lingohr-Smith took the lead in data collection, with assistance from the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Deitelzweig, Menges, and Lin, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Lingohr-Smith and Menges, along with the other authors, and revised by all the authors. Some aspects of this study were presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in New Orleans, Louisiana, November 12-16, 2016.

The burden of restless legs syndrome: an assessment of work productivity, sleep, psychological distress, and health status among diagnosed and undiagnosed individuals in an internet-based panel

BACKGROUND

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) affects approximately 10-15% of the general population and has deleterious effects on sleep and subsequent daytime performance. The disorder may also give rise to long-term complications such as psychological distress and diminished quality of life. The condition is often unrecognized or misdiagnosed, and the magnitude of the effects of RLS on the sizeable proportion of undiagnosed (and therefore untreated) individuals has not previously been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the impact of RLS on overall health status, sleep, psychological functioning, work productivity, and daily activities in individuals with diagnosed and in those with undiagnosed (self-reported) RLS.

METHODS

An internet-based survey was conducted on a multimillion-member panel of US adults. Eligible participants were currently experiencing RLS symptoms as determined using established diagnostic criteria. Participants provided information related to self-reported RLS diagnosis, treatment, symptom frequency and severity, and responses to validated instruments (Medical Outcomes study [MOS] Short Form 12, version 2 [SF-12v2], MOS Sleep Scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale [CES-D], Work Productivity and Activity Impairment - General Health Questionnaire [WPAI-GH] and Work Limitations Questionnaire [WLQ]). Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) models were developed to evaluate the relationships among symptom severity, diagnosis status, age, and sex, and the impact of RLS.

RESULTS

Participants included 702 adults with RLS symptoms. Means for the SF-12v2 scores (physical component score = 35.6, mental component score = 42.6) were at least 1 standard deviation lower than sex- and age-adjusted general population norms. Participants reported poorer sleep quality scores across each MOS Sleep Scale domain, with differences from published norms of >16 points on 100-point scales, as well as approximately 1 hour less sleep per night on average. A majority (64%) met the cut-off score for depression. Compared with population norms, the sample reported greater limitations in time management, physical demands, mental/interpersonal demands, general work output, and usual activities. Symptom intensity and frequency were shown to be the primary predictors of RLS impact on the various outcomes.

CONCLUSION

These results support previous reports that RLS often goes undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. The results of this survey also suggest that regardless of whether RLS is recognized, the burden of the disorder is substantial, implying a need for improved diagnosis and management of RLS.