Search

Objectives To describe current psoriatic arthritis treatment and costs by provider specialty using real-world claims data. Study design Observational, retrospective cohort study of patients in the IBM MarketScan Commercial and supplemental Medicare databases. Methods Eligible patients had newly diagnosed psoriatic arthritis with 12 months of continuous enrollment pre- and post index date for their initial claim. Patients were assigned to 1 of 5 provider specialty cohorts. During the 1-year follow-up period, we collected psoriatic arthritis treatment agent and regimen type and total annual medical and health care costs. We used multivariate regression models to determine the conditional associations of provider specialty with costs. Results A total of 2132 patients with incident psoriatic arthritis qualified. Most providers were rheumatologists (n = 1365; 64%). Rheumatologists commonly prescribed oral small molecules (methotrexate, 56.3% of prescriptions; sulfasalazine, 8.6%; apremilast, 7.0%) as the index therapy, whereas 23.8% of prescriptions were for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, 14.2%; etanercept, 7.9%; and infliximab, 1.7%). Compared with other specialists, dermatologists prescribed biologics and other specialty drugs more frequently-adalimumab (32.7%), apremilast (14.3%), etanercept (11.6%), and ustekinumab (8.8%)-and methotrexate less frequently (30.6%). The greatest unadjusted median health care costs were observed among dermatologists ($45,548) compared with rheumatologists ($30,411), primary care physicians ($29,927), rheumatologists/dermatologists ($27,393), and other specialists ($27,774). However, after adjusting for patient-level factors, multivariate regression analyses found that provider specialty was not associated with higher health care costs. Conclusions In patients with newly diagnosed psoriatic arthritis, physician specialty was associated with different medication choices but not costs.

Background Adverse health impacts of cystic fibrosis (CF) can be present in children before respiratory complications are observed. Children with CF show progressive health decline, with increasing lung function decline in adolescence. This study aims to quantify the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs attributable to CF by comparing children with CF with the general pediatric population. Methods This retrospective, cross‐sectional, observational study compared HCRU and costs among children with CF in the US with demographically similar children without CF (comparison group) over a 12‐month period using administrative claims data spanning 2010–2017. Analyses were conducted by insurance type (commercially insured [COM] and Medicaid insured [MED]) and stratified by age (

Introduction Ivacaftor was first approved in 2012 for the treatment of a select population of individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF), a rare, life-shortening genetic disease. Reductions in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with ivacaftor have been observed during limited follow-up and for selected outcomes in real-world studies. This study aimed to further describe the long-term impact of ivacaftor treatment on multiple measures of HCRU among people with CF (pwCF). Methods This retrospective study used US commercial and Medicaid claims data from 2011–2018. We included pwCF ≥ 6 years of age with ≥ 1 claim for ivacaftor and 12 months of continuous health plan enrollment before ivacaftor initiation (“pre-ivacaftor” period) who also had 36 months of continuous enrollment and persistent ivacaftor use (i.e., no gap ≥ 90 days between refills) following initiation (“post-ivacaftor” period). We compared comorbidities occurring pre-ivacaftor versus the last 12 months post-ivacaftor. HCRU outcomes included medication use, inpatient admissions, and outpatient office visits. We compared medication use pre-ivacaftor versus the last 12 months post-ivacaftor and inpatient admissions and outpatient office visits pre-ivacaftor versus the post-ivacaftor period annualized across 36 months. Results Seventy-nine pwCF met all criteria, including persistent ivacaftor use during the post-ivacaftor period. Ivacaftor treatment was associated with a significant reduction in pneumonia prevalence (10.1% vs. 26.6%; p

ObjectiveTo examine the effects of belimumab initiation on healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and costs in SLE.MethodsThis retrospective observational cohort study used healthcare administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database to identify patients with SLE billing codes who received ≥1 intravenous belimumab infusion between March 2011 and December 2015. The first belimumab administration was the ‘index date’. During the 6-month postindex period, nine belimumab infusions were recommended: three during the initiation period and six during the maintenance period. HCRU and cost data for inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, physician office visits, hospital-based outpatient visits, laboratory services, other outpatient services and outpatient pharmacy prescriptions were compared in the 6-month pre/postindex periods.ResultsOf the 1879 patients with SLE included, 43% received ≥3 intravenous initiation administrations. An average of 5.3 (SD: 2.4) of the nine recommended belimumab administrations were received within 6 months. In the 6-month preindex versus postindex periods, significant reductions were noted for inpatient hospitalisations (18% vs 9%, pConclusionsIn this study of real-world intravenous belimumab for SLE, adherence to recommended infusion schedules was low. Outpatient healthcare and associated costs were higher in the 6 months after belimumab was initiated, although inpatient costs were lower. Reasons for non-adherence with belimumab and implications should be investigated.

Prior research has shown that rates of persistence and compliance with osteoporosis therapies are associated with significantly fewer vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures. A number of studies have examined medication-taking behavior with oral bisphosphonates and teriparatide, and these 1-year persistence rates have ranged from 39.9% to 56.7%. Limited real-world data are available regarding persistence and compliance rates with newer therapies such as denosumab, a RANK ligand inhibitor administered every 6 months as a subcutaneous injection. To assess persistence and compliance rates over 1 year with newly initiated osteoporosis therapies, including denosumab, alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, raloxifene, and teriparatide, within a cohort of commercially insured women. Health insurance claims data derived from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits databases (2010-2013) were used to conduct this retrospective cohort study. Adult females aged 18 years and older newly initiated on denosumab, raloxifene, teriparatide, or oral bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, or risedronate) between January 1, 2012, and March 31, 2012, were identified for inclusion. The date of the first qualifying osteoporosis prescription claim was defined as the index date. Patients were required to have at least 24 months of pre-index and at least 12 months of post-index continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits. Outcomes of patients initiating zoledronic acid (administered intravenously once yearly) were not assessed because a 12-month follow-up period would be insufficient for tracking persistence and compliance for this medication. Patients with Paget's disease of the bone, osteogenesis imperfecta, hypercalcemia, malignant cancer and metastasis, human immunodeficiency virus, and patients receiving preventive treatment for risk of breast cancer or denosumab in the pre-index period were excluded from the study. A subcohort of women aged 50 years and older at high risk for fracture (indicated by 1 or more of the following: aged ≥ 70 years, a pre-index fracture, or pre-index use of osteoporosis therapy that was discontinued at least 3 months prior to index) was analyzed separately. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Persistence, indicated by continuous use of the index therapy without a gap of 60 days or more; medication coverage ratio (MCR), the proportion of days covered by the index therapy; and compliance, defined as an MCR ≥ 0.80, were assessed during the 12-month follow-up. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of persistence and compliance for the treatment groups of interest.10,863 female patients newly initiating osteoporosis medications (mean [SD] age: 66.2 [11.5] years) were identified. In the pre-index period, 35.8% of patients had a diagnosis of osteoporosis, while 11.5% had a diagnosis of osteopenia. Pre-index osteoporosis treatment was identified in 29.1% of patients, and 13.6% had an osteoporosis-related fracture in the pre-index period. Propensity score weight-adjusted 12-month persistence with the index medication varied from 28.9% to 35.1% for oral bisphosphonate users, 42.0% for raloxifene users, 59.1% for teriparatide users, and 68.3% for denosumab users (P less than 0.0001). The adjusted mean [SD] MCR was highest among patients treated with denosumab (0.83 [0.21]), followed by teriparatide (0.67 [0.31]), raloxifene, (0.57 [0.34]), ibandronate (0.54 [0.32]), alendronate (0.51 [0.33]), and risedronate (0.46 [0.33]; P less than 0.0001). The odds of being persistent and compliant across treatments favored denosumab (OR = 1.59 to 5.56, P less than 0.05 for persistence; OR = 2.44 to 7.69, P less than 0.0001 for compliance). Results were similar in the subcohort of women aged 50 years and older at high risk for fracture (n = 6,187; mean [SD] age: 71.9 [10.9] years). The odds of being persistent and compliant across treatments also favored denosumab (OR = 1.62 to 5.75, P less than 0.0001 for persistence; OR = 2.36 to 7.25, P less than 0.0001 for compliance).In a U.S. setting, rates of persistence and compliance over 12 months were higher among women initiating denosumab compared with those initiating other osteoporosis therapies.