Collection of economic data using UB-04s: Is it worth the effort? Evidence from two clinical trials

Cost collection using UB-04 forms for economic evaluation is challenging, as UB-04 collection is time and effort intensive and compliance is imperfect. Alternative data sources could overcome those challenges. The objective of this study is to determine the usefulness of UB-04 data in estimating hospital costs compared to clinical case report form (CRF) data. Health care utilization costs were compared from financial information in UB-04s and from an assignment process using CRF data, from the WRAP-IT (23 infections) and the Micra IDE trials (61 adverse events and 108 implants). Charge-based costs were calculated by multiplying charges in UB-04s and hospital-specific Cost-to-Charge ratios from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cost reports. The cost assignment process used clinical information to find comparable encounters in real world data and assigned an average cost. Paired difference tests evaluated whether both methods yield similar results. The mean difference in total infection related costs between methods in the WRAP-IT trial was $152 +/-$22,565. In the Micra IDE trial, the mean difference in total adverse event related costs between methods was -$355 +/-$8,298 while the mean difference in total implant related costs between methods was $-3,488 +/-$13,859. Wilcoxon tests and generalized linear models could not reject the difference in costs between methods in the first two cases. Cost assignment methods achieve results similar to costs obtained through UB-04s, without the additional investment in time and effort. The use of UB-04 information for services that are not mature in a health care system may present unexpected challenges, necessitating a tradeoff with other methods of cost assignment.

Chronic outcomes of leadless vs transvenous single chamber ventricular pacemakers in high-risk subgroups

Background

The Micra leadless pacemaker (LP-VVI) has been shown to have lower chronic complications and device-related reinterventions compared to transvenous ventricular pacemakers (TV-VVI) in a large, real-world population. This study compares the complication and reintervention rate in subgroups with comorbidities associated with higher risk of pacemaker complications and hypothesized to benefit from leadless pacing.

Methods

The longitudinal Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) Study compared the outcomes of Medicare patients receiving LP-VVI to those receiving a TV-VVI in the US. Patients in the Micra CED study were included in this study if they had a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease Stages 4–5 (CKD45), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), malignancy, diabetes, tricuspid valve disease (TVD), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on any administrative claim in the 12 months prior to pacemaker implant. A pre-specified set of complications and system reinterventions were identified using the relevant diagnosis and procedure codes. Adjusted and unadjusted Fine-Gray competing risks models were used to compare reinterventions and complications between LP-VVI and TV-VVI patients within each subgroup. All results were adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction. An ad-hoc comparison of a composite endpoint of select reinterventions (system replacement, removal, revision, and lead reinterventions) and device complications was also conducted.

Results

The sample size of patients in each subgroup ranged from 2,032 patients with ESRD to 11,936 patients with diabetes. The percent of LP-VVI patients in each subgroup ranged from 44.0 in the TVD subgroup to 74.9 in the ESRD subgroup. Compared to patients implanted with a TV-VVI, patients with a LP-VVI with malignancy, diabetes, TVD, and COPD had significantly fewer complications (Table 1; Malignancy, HR 0.68, [0.48–0.95]; Diabetes, HR 0.69, [0.53–0.89]; TVD, HR 0.60 [0.44–0.82]; COPD, HR 0.73, [0.55–0.98]). LP-VVI patients with diabetes, TVD, and COPD also had lower rates of reintervention (Table; Diabetes, HR 0.58, [0.37–0.89]; TVD, HR 0.46 [0.28–0.76]; COPD, HR 0.51, [0.29–0.90]). LP-VVI patients with malignancy, diabetes, TVD, and COPD had lower rates of the combined endpoint of device complications and select reinterventions (Table; Malignancy, HR 0.52, [0.32–0.83]; Diabetes, HR 0.52, [0.35–0.77]; TVD, HR 0.44 [0.28–0.70]; COPD, HR 0.55, [0.34–0.89]).

Conclusions

In a real-world study of US Medicare patients, the leadless pacemaker was associated with lower rates of chronic complications and reinterventions at 2 years compared with TV-VVI pacing in several high-risk subgroups.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Medtronic

Contemporaneous Comparison of Outcomes Among Patients Implanted With a Leadless vs Transvenous Single-Chamber Ventricular Pacemaker

Question

How do the performance of leadless VVI pacemakers and transvenous VVI pacemakers compare in a contemporaneous Medicare population?

Findings

In this cohort study including 15 408 patients, despite significant differences in patient characteristics, patients in whom a leadless pacemaker was implanted were observed to have higher rates of pericardial effusion and/or perforation but lower rates of other device-related complications and requirements for device revision at 6 months.

Meaning

The results from this study further develop the evidence on leadless pacemakers in practice and can inform shared decision-making about device choice for patients and physicians.

Importance

The safety and efficacy of leadless VVI pacemakers have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but the comparative performance of the device in a large, real-world population has not been examined.

Objective

To compare patient characteristics and complications among patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers.

Design, Setting, Participants

The Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers (Micra CED) is a continuously enrolling observational cohort study evaluating complications, utilization, and outcomes of leadless VVI pacemakers in the US Medicare fee-for-service population. Patients implanted between March 9, 2017, and December 1, 2018, were identified and included. All Medicare patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers during the study period were enrolled. Patients with less than 12 months of continuous enrollment in Medicare prior to leadless VVI or transvenous VVI implant and with evidence of a prior cardiovascular implantable electronic device were excluded, leaving 5746 patients with leadless VVI pacemakers and 9662 patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers. Data were analyzed from May 2018 to April 2021.

Exposures

Medicare patients implanted with leadless VVI pacemakers or transvenous VVI pacemakers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were acute (30-day) complications and 6-month complications.

Results

Of 15 408 patients, 6701 (43.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 81.0 (8.7) years. Compared with patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers, patients with leadless VVI pacemakers were more likely to have end-stage kidney disease (690 [12.0%] vs 226 [2.3%]; P < .001) and a higher mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index score (5.1 [3.4] vs 4.6 [3.0]; P < .001). The unadjusted acute complication rate was higher in patients with leadless VVI pacemakers relative to transvenous VVI pacemakers (484 of 5746 [8.4%] vs 707 of 9662 [7.3%]; P = .02). However, there was no significant difference in overall acute complication rates following adjustment for patient characteristics (7.7% vs 7.4%; risk difference, 0.3; 95% CI, −0.6 to 1.3; P = .49). Pericardial effusion and/or perforation within 30 days was significantly higher among patients with leadless VVI pacemakers compared with patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers in both unadjusted and adjusted models (unadjusted, 47 of 5746 [0.8%] vs 38 of 9662 [0.4%]; P < .001; adjusted, 0.8% vs 0.4%; risk difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.7; P = .004). Patients implanted with leadless VVI pacemakers had a lower rate of 6-month complications compared with patients implanted with transvenous VVI pacemakers (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03; P = .10; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, despite significant differences in patient characteristics, patients in whom a leadless pacemaker was implanted were observed to have higher rates of pericardial effusion and/or perforation but lower rates of other device-related complications and requirements for device revision at 6 months. Understanding the benefits and risks associated with leadless VVI pacemakers compared with transvenous VVI pacemakers can help clinicians and patients make informed treatment decisions.

Economic impact of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: cost analysis at one year in a large U.S. health insurer

Aims: Cardiac device infections (CDIs) are serious adverse events associated with morbidity and mortality, significant costs and increased healthcare utilization. The objective of the current study was to characterize the CDI rate by device type, risk factors for infection and healthcare costs from a large U.S. health insurer perspective.Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of a large U.S. health insurer database identified commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) members ≥18 years with ≥1 claim for a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedure between 01 October 2011 and 31 October 2015. CIEDs included pacemakers (IPG), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy - pacemakers without (CRT-P) and with defibrillation (CRT-D). Probabilities of CDI through one-year post implant were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A regression model with stepwise variable selection was used to select risk factors associated with CDIs.Results: A total of 63,406 patients were included with an overall CDI rate of 1.28% (1.0% de novo and 1.74% replacement devices), varying by device type: IPG = 0.91%; ICD = 1.63%; CRT-p = 1.50%; CRT-D = 2.22%. The average adjusted annual medical costs were 2.4 times greater [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.1-2.7] for those with an infection compared to those without, and the incremental cost difference was estimated to be $57,322 [95% CI $46,572-$70,484]. Observed risk factors of CDIs included prior device infection [Odds ratio (OR) = 11.356; 95% CI = 7.923-16.276], undergoing a CIED replacement procedure (OR = 1.644; 95% CI = 1.361-1.987), implantation of a high-power device (OR = 1.354; 95% CI = 1.115-1.643), and younger age (age < 65) (OR = 1.607; 95% CI = 1.307-1.976).Conclusions: The CDI rate at one year ranged from 0.91%-2.22% depending on device type. Management of CDIs among commercial and MAPD members is associated with high healthcare expenditures.

Medical cost impact of intrathecal baclofen therapy for severe spasticity

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the economic effects of intrathecal baclofen (ITB) for patients with severe spasticity based on costs of care before and after implantation of an intrathecal drug delivery system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An actuarial projection of post-implant experience in the absence of ITB intervention was used to simulate a continued conventional medical management protocol (ITB-free) by assuming a reasonable trend rate based on health-care industry standards. Cost projections were developed over a 30-year time horizon at various reimplantation rates. The model was informed by retrospective analysis of commercial administrative claims data from 409 pediatric and adult spasticity patients who received a pump implant (ITB-experienced) within a 3-year service period (January 2006 to January 2009). Common indications associated with pump implant included multiple sclerosis (N = 124), cerebral palsy (N = 131), and spinal cord injury (N = 40).

RESULTS

ITB was less costly than the conventional protocol over our baseline implantation cycle. Costs in the month of implant and in the year following were cumulatively $26,375 more than with the conventional protocol. However, ITB financial break-even occurs between the second and third years post-implant. The lifetime analysis indicates that savings for ITB are $8009 per patient per year compared with conventional therapy. Most of the savings are derived from reductions in inpatient admissions, physician office visits, and outpatient physiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that spasticity patients receiving ITB would expect to experience a reduction in cumulative future medical costs relative to anticipated costs in the absence of a pump implant. This finding complements the existing literature on the cost-effectiveness of ITB.