Search

Chris LaVallee,1 Isha Bansal,2 Shilpa Kamdar,2 Winghan Jacqueline Kwong,3 Ralph V Boccia4 1Health Outcomes Research, Decision Resources Group, Burlington, MA, USA; 2Analytics, Decision Resources Group, Burlington, MA, USA; 3Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Daiichi Sankyo Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, USA; 4Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, P.C, Bethesda, MD, USACorrespondence: Winghan Jacqueline Kwong, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., 211 Mt Airy Road, Basking Ridge, NJ, 07920, USA, Tel +1 908 992 7063, Email jkwong@dsi.comPurpose: Replacement iron is the main treatment for iron deficiency, but the relationship between initial intravenous (IV) dose and need for additional treatment is unclear. This study explored patterns of IV iron dosing in US clinical practice.Methods: Patient records were obtained for adults who received IV iron for anemia between 2015 and 2017. Patients were classified into four groups: those who received < 1500 mg and ≥ 1500 mg IV iron and those received ≤ 1000 mg and > 1000 mg within 3 weeks of their first dose. The proportion of patients requiring additional IV iron after 30 days of the initial dose was evaluated.Results: Data were obtained for 2959 patients receiving iron sucrose (44.2%), ferric carboxymaltose injection (FCM) (25.8%), and ferumoxytol (FM) (14.3%). Overall, 567 patients (19%) received ≥ 1500 mg of IV iron and 942 (32%) received > 1000 mg of IV iron within the first 21 days. Mean (SD) baseline iron deficit was 1001 mg (312). Patients who received ≥ 1500 mg had a 32% lower probability of receiving additional IV iron than those who received < 1500 mg (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI); 0.58, 0.81]) and incurred significantly fewer outpatient visits for all causes (p < 0.001) and IV iron treatment (p < 0.001). Patients who received an initial dose of > 1000 mg had a 41% lower probability of receiving additional IV iron than those who received ≤ 1000 mg (adjusted HR: 0.59

Judith J Stephenson,1 Mayura U Shinde,1 Winghan Jacqueline Kwong,2 An-Chen Fu,1 Hiangkiat Tan,1 William S Weintraub3 1HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, 2Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, 3Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE, USA Objective: To compare oral anticoagulant (OAC) adherence among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) using patient-reported and claims-based measures, and to evaluate the effect of OAC adherence on health care costs and patient satisfaction with OAC therapy.Methods: This was a hybrid US observational study consisting of a longitudinal cohort survey followed by linkage and analysis of respondents’ administrative claims data. Patients with NVAF receiving warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban completed an initial survey and follow-up surveys at 4, 8, and 12 months. Patient-reported adherence was measured at each survey by Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and pharmacy claims-determined adherence by the proportion of days covered (PDC) for the 12-month period following the initial survey date; adherence was defined as MMAS-8 score =8 and PDC ≥80%. Patient satisfaction with OAC therapy was assessed by the Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS).Results: Overall, 675 patients completed at least the initial survey (warfarin, n=271; dabigatran, n=266; rivaroxaban, n=128; apixaban, n=10). Fewer than half (47.9%) were PDC adherent, 37.2% were MMAS-8 adherent, and 19.4% were adherent by both measures. Total medical costs of PDC-adherent patients were significantly lower vs PDC-nonadherent patients (US$640 vs $993 per-patient per-month, respectively, p<0.05). MMAS-8-adherent patients reported higher treatment satisfaction; total DASS score was significantly lower among MMAS-8-adherent than MMAS-8-nonadherent patients (37.3 vs 42.9, respectively, p<0.001).Conclusion: Using claims-based or patient-reported methods to measure OAC adherence may lead to different results whe

Maria M Fernandez,1 Susan Hogue,1 Ronald Preblick,2 Winghan Jacqueline Kwong2 1RTI-Health Solutions, Market Access and Outcomes Strategy, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Parsippany, NJ, USA Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second most common medical complication and a cause of excess length of hospital stay. Its incidence and economic burden are expected to increase as the population ages. We reviewed the recent literature to provide updated cost estimates on VTE management. Methods: Literature search strategies were performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration, Health Economic Evaluations Database, EconLit, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 2003–2014. Additional studies were identified through searching bibliographies of related publications. Results: Eighteen studies were identified and are summarized in this review; of these, 13 reported data from the USA, four from Europe, and one from Canada. Three main cost estimations were identified: cost per VTE hospitalization or per VTE readmission; cost for VTE management, usually reported annually or during a specific period; and annual all-cause costs in patients with VTE, which included the treatment of complications and comorbidities. Cost estimates per VTE hospitalization were generally similar across the US studies, with a trend toward an increase over time. Cost per pulmonary embolism hospitalization increased from $5,198–$6,928 in 2000 to $8,764 in 2010. Readmission for recurrent VTE was generally more costly than the initial index event admission. Annual health plan payments for services related to VTE also increased from $10,804–$16,644 during the 1998–2004 period to an estimated average of $15,123 for a VTE event from 2008 to 2011. Lower costs for VTE hospitalizations and annualized all-cause costs were estimated in European countries and Canada. Conclusion: Costs for VTE