Search

Background: Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs incurred over 12 months following initiation of galcanezumab (GMB) or standard-of-care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments have been evaluated. However, a gap in knowledge exists in understanding longer-term HCRU and direct costs., Objective: To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs in patients with migraine initiating GMB or SOC preventive migraine treatments over a 24-month follow-up., Methods: This retrospective study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data. The study included adults diagnosed with migraine, with at least 1 claim for GMB or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 2018 to March 2020), with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first GMB or SOC claim). Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used to balance cohorts. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs for GMB vs SOC cohorts were reported as mean (SD) per patient per year (PPPY) over a 24-month follow-up and compared using a Z-test. Costs were inflated to 2022 US$., Results: After PS matching, 2,307 patient pairs (mean age: 44.4 years; female sex: 87.3%) were identified. Compared with the SOC cohort, the GMB cohort had lower mean (SD) PPPY all-cause office visits (17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7]; P = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; P = 0.002) at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between cohorts in other all-cause and migraine-related events assessed including outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. The mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort compared with the SOC cohort for all-cause office visits ($4,321 [7,518] vs $5,033 [7,211]; P < 0.001) at follow-up. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY all-cause total costs ($24,704 [30,705] vs $21,902 [28,213]; P = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. Mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort for migraine-related office visits ($806 [1,690] vs $1,353 [2,805]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY migraine-related total costs ($8,248 [11,486] vs $5,047 [9,749]; P < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in all-cause and migraine-related costs for outpatient visits, ED visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits., Conclusions: Although total costs were greater for GMB vs SOC following initiation, changes in a few categories of all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs were lower for GMB over a 24-month follow-up. Additional analysis evaluating indirect health care costs may offer insights into further cost savings incurred with preventive migraine treatment.

Objective: To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data., Methods: This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts., Results: The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p  < .001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p  < .001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab ( p  < .001) and onabotulinumtoxinA ( p  = .016)., Conclusion: Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up.

Objectives: To measure variation in spending and inpatient prices associated with the primary care physician (PCP) practice to which patients are attributed., Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis of claims data., Methods: We used random effect models to estimate case mix-adjusted spending across large PCP practices within 3-digit zip codes. We compare inpatient prices for patients in high-spending practices with those in low-spending practices., Results: The physician practice to which a patient was attributed is associated with significant differences in spending after controlling for patient comorbidities and geography. Patients attributed to practices in the top quartile of total medical expenses have about 30% higher spending than patients attributed to practices in the bottom quartile of adjusted spending in their 3-digit zip code. If patients attributed to practices in the top 2 quartiles had spending equivalent to those in the median practice, total spending would drop by 8%. Price variation accounts for a meaningful amount of the variation, with inpatient prices 17% higher in top-quartile vs bottom-quartile practices. We cannot disaggregate the large variation in utilization into practice patterns and unmeasured case mix (including unmeasured differences in patients' socioeconomic status) vs random health shocks, but correlation in spending patterns across years suggests that some persistent differences in spending patterns exist., Conclusions: There are meaningful opportunities to reduce spending by changing patient PCP selection, encouraging patients to use lower-priced specialists and hospitals, and eliminating wasteful care. Attention must be paid to the best ways to reap these savings.

Objective: The objective of this study was to describe and compare health care resource utilization (HCRU) and disease modifying treatment (DMT) use among US adults <65 years with multiple sclerosis (MS), across commercial and Medicare Advantage plans., Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims data from commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) plans were extracted for MS patients age 18 - 64 identified between 1 January 2014 and 31 May 2017. Comparisons were made between commercial and MAPD enrollees for all-cause HCRU and DMT use over 1 year, overall and by 5 year age groups., Results: A total of 28,427 MS patients were identified; two-thirds (67%) had commercial coverage. MAPD patients had statistically significantly higher mean counts of all-cause inpatient, emergency room (ER) and ambulatory visits compared to commercial patients. The significant differences were evident in all age groups ≥30 years, except for ER visits in the 40-44 and 60-64 age groups. MAPD patients had statistically significantly lower prevalence of DMT use compared to commercial patients in all age groups starting at ≥35 years., Conclusion: MAPD patients had a higher burden of medical HCRU compared to their commercially insured counterparts, most likely due primarily to their more advanced disease state and higher level of MS-related disability. Reasons for lower prevalence of DMT use among MAPD patients may include their more advanced disease state, older age and higher prevalence of comorbid conditions compared with commercially insured patients, as well as more restrictive formularies for MAPD vs. commercial plans. These findings suggest that there may be an opportunity for recently approved DMTs indicated for active secondary progressive MS to fulfill an unmet need for treatment among MS patients <65 years without contraindicated comorbid conditions who are enrolled in MAPD plans. Novel therapies under development to delay progression may help keep MS patients of working age in the work force.

Introduction: Endometriosis symptoms are nonspecific and overlap with other gynecologic and gastrointestinal diseases, leading to long diagnostic delays. The burden of endometriosis has been documented; however, little is known about the impact of diagnostic delays on healthcare costs leading up to diagnoses. The purpose of this study was to examine the economic impact of diagnostic delays on pre-diagnosis healthcare utilization and costs among patients with endometriosis., Methods: This was a retrospective database study of adult patients with a diagnosis of endometriosis from 1 January 2004 to 31 July 2016. Patients had continuous health plan enrollment 60 months prior to and 12 months following the earliest endometriosis diagnosis and ≥ 1 pre-diagnosis endometriosis symptom (dyspareunia, generalized pelvic pain, abdominal pain, dysmenorrhea, or infertility). Patients were assigned to short (≤ 1 year), intermediate (1-3 years), or long (3-5 years) delay cohorts based on the length of their diagnostic delay (time from first symptom to diagnosis). Healthcare resource utilization and costs were calculated and compared by cohort in the 60-month pre-diagnosis period., Results: A total of 11,793 patients were included in the study, of which 37.7% (4446/11,793), 27.0% (3179/11,793), and 35.3% (4168/11,793) had short, intermediate, and long delays, respectively. Patients with intermediate or long diagnostic delays had consistently more all-cause and endometriosis-related emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations in the pre-diagnosis period than patients with short delays. Pre-diagnosis all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher among patients with longer diagnostic delays, averaging $21,489, $30,030, and $34,460 among patients with a short, intermediate, and long delay, respectively (p < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). Endometriosis-related costs accounted for 12.5% ($3553/$28,376) of all-cause costs and followed a similar pattern., Conclusion: Patients with endometriosis who had longer diagnostic delays had more pre-diagnosis endometriosis-related symptoms and higher pre-diagnosis healthcare utilization and costs compared with patients who were diagnosed earlier after symptom onset, providing evidence in support of earlier diagnosis.

Objectives: Methods of energy delivery for traditional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems consist of adjusting programming parameters to affect the total charge delivered per unit time. One high electrical charge delivery method being considered is subthreshold high density (HD) programming. To date, there is limited clinical evidence for the efficacy and safety of paresthesia-free HD programming. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of HD programming., Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was performed on HD-programmed SCS patients with a minimum of one year follow-up. Three HD categories were examined: trial, implant, and conversion (i.e., patients with conventional SCS who were converted to HD settings). High density amplitude settings were below paresthesia threshold. Patients were classified as responders to HD if they preferred the paresthesia-free HD setting to the conventional setting and demonstrated ≥50% pain reduction compared to baseline pain score on delivery and no-stimulation related neurological deficit. Adverse effects were documented., Results: Seventeen patients were identified, including 11 conversion patients and six patients who had positive response to HD programming during the trial and then were implanted. For trial/implant and conversion patients, both HD and conventional programming significantly reduced the numerical pain rating scale (NRPS) compared to baseline (p ≤ 0.026). Pain scores were not significantly different between the HD and traditional programs for the trial (p = 0.060), implant (p = 0.632), and conversion categories (p = 0.658). Through at least 12 months of follow-up, eight (47%) patients continued to be HD responders., Conclusions: In subpopulations, HD programming may be a viable option to deliver subthreshold pain reduction. Randomized, controlled trials with extended follow-up are needed to further evaluate HD programming., (© 2017 International Neuromodulation Society.)