Higher All-cause Health Care Costs Research Articles

Prescription opioid utilization patterns, and associated outcomes, among privately insured patients prescribed opioids to manage pain associated with osteoarthritis

Objective To describe utilization patterns, negative clinical outcomes and economic burden of patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and/or knee who received a prescription for tramadol or non-tramadol opioids vs. non-opioid drugs. Methods Optum Healthcare Solutions, Inc. commercial claims data were used (1/2012--3/2017). Adults with ≥2 diagnoses of OA of the hip and/or knee, and ≥30 days supply of pain medications were identified during the three-year period from the date of first prescription (index date) after the first OA diagnosis. Drug utilization statistics in the follow-up period were summarized by initial treatment (i.e. tramadol, non-tramadol opioids, non-opioid drugs). Opioid initiators were matched to those initiated on non-opioid treatments using a propensity score model accounting for baseline characteristics. Matched pairs analysis compared outcomes for these cohorts. Results Of 62,715 total patients, 15,270 (24.3%) initiated treatment with opioids, including 3,513 (5.6%) on tramadol and 11,757 (18.7%) on non-tramadol opioids. Opioid initiators had more comorbidities, higher baseline healthcare costs, and were more likely to have OA of the hip. Among non-opioid initiators, 27.5% switched to tramadol and 63% switched to non-tramadol opioids. Among tramadol initiators, 71% switched to non-tramadol opioids. Patients initiated on opioids had 20.4% (p < .01) higher all-cause healthcare costs and higher percentages experiencing multiple negative clinical outcomes (all p < .01) compared to matched controls. Conclusions Most patients with OA of the hip and/or knee either initiate on or switch to opioids for long-term management of OA-related pain despite known risks. This highlights the need for new treatments that delay or prevent use of opioids.

The Economic Burden of End-Organ Damage Among Medicaid Patients with Sickle Cell Disease in the United States: A Population-Based Longitudinal Claims Study.

The management of sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited, chronic, and multifaceted condition, is associated with considerable health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs, especially for Medicaid. Anemia affects most patients with SCD and correlates with end-organ damage (EOD), such as stroke, chronic kidney disease (CKD), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and pulmonary hypertension (PH). Limited research has been conducted to quantify the economic burden of EOD among patients with SCD. To estimate the effect of EOD on HRU and direct costs and productivity loss incurred by patients with SCD on Medicaid. Patients with ≥ 3 nondiagnostic SCD ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM codes in ≤ 5 years (January 1, 2013-December 31, 2017) were identified in the MarketScan Medicaid claims database. The earliest SCD diagnosis date was the index date. Continuous enrollment at least 3 months before and 1 month after the index date were required. Patients' post-index periods were divided into 3-month intervals (referred to as "intervals"). History of stroke, CKD, ESRD, and PH were identified in patients' claims histories from January 1, 2008. Intervals within 1 year and more than 1 year after an acute stroke event were also defined. All-cause HRU, direct costs, and productivity losses were summed across intervals and stratified by EOD type. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate the effect of stroke, CKD, ESRD, and PH on annual total cost, inpatient days, and number of emergency department visits by controlling for patients' demographic characteristics and other SCD complications. In total, 10,784 Medicaid patients with SCD (average age: 18.5 years; female: 54.5%) contributed to 152,455 intervals. Approximately 12% of the intervals had EOD. Patients with EOD had higher all-cause health care costs and more inpatient days, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, laboratory tests, and outpatient pharmacy claims than patients without EOD. After controlling for patient characteristics, among Medicaid patients with SCD annual costs within 1 year after stroke were 4.68-fold versus patients with no EOD (more than 1 year after stroke: 2.08-fold; CKD: 2.19-fold; ESRD: 3.40-fold; PH: 2.32-fold). Adjusted mean annual costs for adult patients with SCD on Medicaid were $285,816 and $127,393 within 1 year and more than 1 year after stroke and $135,493, $209,172, and $148,174 for CKD, ESRD, and PH, respectively. Patients with multiple SCD complications had even higher costs. The mean annual time patients with SCD spent receiving health care services ranged from 56 to 62 days for those with EOD versus 21 to 25 days among those without EOD, which created additional economic burden. When Medicaid patients with SCD experience EOD, the economic burden is significantly increased through direct costs to the health care system and indirect costs from productivity loss to society. SCD management strategies that potentially reduce the risk of EOD offer clinical and economic value to patients and society. Funding for this study was provided by Global Blood Therapeutics (GBT). Campbell is a consultant for GBT, Bluebird Bio, and Cyclerion and receives research funding from Novartis, GBT, and Cyclerion. Cong and Agodoa are employees of and have equity ownership in GBT. Song, Martinez, Black, Lew, Varker, and Chan are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received research funding from GBT for this study. Lanzkron receives research funding from GBT, Pfizer, Ironwood, HRSA, and NIH. A poster based on this study was presented at the 61st ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

The impact of high-risk and chronic opioid use among commercially insured endometriosis patients on health care resource utilization and costs in the United States.

Objectives:Evaluate all-cause and endometriosis-related health care resource utilization and costs among newly diagnosed endometriosis patients with high-risk versus low-risk opioid use or patients with chronic versus non-chronic opioid use.Methods:A retrospective analysis of IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims data from 2009 to 2018 was performed for females aged 18 to 49 with newly diagnosed endometriosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition code: 617.xx; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition code: N80.xx). Two sub-cohorts were identified: high-risk (⩾1 day with ⩾90 morphine milligram equivalents per day or ⩾1-day concomitant benzodiazepine use) or chronic opioid utilization (⩾90-day supply prescribed or ⩾10 opioid prescriptions). High-risk or chronic utilization was evaluated during the 12-month assessment period after the index date. Index date was the first opioid prescription within 12 months following endometriosis diagnosis. All outcomes were assessed over 12-month post-assessment period while adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.Results:Out of 61,019 patients identified, 18,239 had high-risk opioid use and 5001 chronic opioid use. Health care resource utilization drivers were outpatient visits and pharmacy fills, which were higher among high-risk versus low-risk patients (outpatient visits: 17.49 vs 15.51; pharmacy fills: 19.58 vs 16.88, p < 0.0001). Chronic opioid users had a higher number of outpatient visits (19.53 vs 15.00, p < 0.0001) and pharmacy fills (23.18 vs 16.43, p < 0.0001) compared to non-chronic opioid users. High-risk opioid users had significantly higher all-cause health care costs compared to low-risk opioid users (US$16,377 vs US$13,153; p < 0.0001). Chronic opioid users also had significantly higher all-cause health care costs compared to non-chronic opioid users (US$20,930 vs US$12,272; p < 0.0001). Similar patterns were observed among endometriosis-related HCRU, except pharmacy fills among high-risk and chronic sub-cohorts.Conclusion:This analysis demonstrates significantly higher all-cause and endometriosis-related health care resource utilization and total costs for high-risk opioid users compared to low-risk opioid users among newly diagnosed endometriosis patients over 1 year. Similar trends were observed for comparing chronic opioid users with non-chronic opioid users, except for endometriosis-related pharmacy fills and associated costs.

Factors Associated with Direct Health Care Costs Among Patients with Migraine.

Migraine imposes substantial economic burden on patients and the health care system. Approximately 18% of women and 6% of men suffer from migraine in the United States. This is a heterogeneous group, and little data are available to evaluate factors associated with migraine costs. To evaluate characteristics associated with high costs among commercially insured patients with migraine. This retrospective analysis identified patients with migraine in the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases between January 2008 and June 2013. Patients were required to have 12 months continuous enrollment before and after migraine diagnoses and/or migraine-specific medications (index date). Patients with costs greater than the top 25th percentile of all-cause costs during the 12-month post-index period were classified into the upper quartile (UQ) cohort. Multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic and clinical factors associated with being in the UQ cohort, and generalized linear models were used to estimate the incremental costs by select factors after controlling for other covariates. In the total population, 857,073 patients (mean [SD] age: 43.2 [12.5] years), were included, with 83.2% females. Average post-index annual all-cause costs were $13,045 (SD = $25,328) with the top 25th percentile of costs at $14,120. Overall, 44.4% and 54.8% of patients had ≥ 1 pre-index claim for opioids and triptans, respectively. Patients with ≥ 2 migraine-related emergency room visits were twice as likely to be in the UQ cohort (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 2.02-2.25; P < 0.05) and incurred $3,125 incremental all-cause costs compared with those with < 2 visits. Patients who visited a neurologist were 33.0% more likely to be in the UQ cohort and had significantly higher adjusted all-cause costs ($11,794 vs. $9,868, P < 0.05). Opioid users had a 1.5-3 times increased likelihood of being in the UQ cohort (P < 0.05); adjusted all-cause annual costs ranged from $8,888 (95% CI = $8,862-$8,914) for nonusers to $15,210 (95% CI = $15,113-$15,307) for high users (7+ claims). Patients having 7+ triptan claims were 1.2 times as likely to be in the UQ cohort compared with nonusers, with estimated costs of $11,517 (95% CI = $11,438-$11,596) for high users and $10,753 (95% CI = $10,717-$10,790) for nonusers. Results suggest that certain modifiable factors, such as increased acute medication use (opioids and triptans) and more migraine-related emergency room visits are associated with higher all-cause health care costs for patients with migraine. These findings could be used to identify patients who require early intervention, enhanced symptoms monitoring, and appropriate disease management. Future studies could examine the effect of disease severity on health resource utilization and costs using survey or medical record data. This study was funded by Amgen and conducted by Truven Health Analytics. Bonafede, Cappell, and Kim are employees of Truven Health Analytics, which received compensation from Amgen for the overall conduct of the study and preparation of the manuscript. Cai was an employee of Truven Health Analytics at the time of this study. Sapra, Shah, and Desai are employees of Amgen. Katherine Widnell was an employee of Amgen when the manuscript draft was developed. Winner reports receiving research support from Allergan, Amgen, A-Z, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly. Study concept and design were contributed by Bonafede, Sapra, Shah, and Desai, along with Widnell and Winner. Kim and Cai took the lead in data collection, assisted by Bonafede and Cappell. Data interpretation was performed by Widnell and Winter, along with the other authors. All authors contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.

Burden of Alcohol Abuse or Dependence Among Long-Term Opioid Users with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

Substance abuse disorders among chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients add to the clinical challenges and economic burden of caring for such patients. Despite potential risks, some CNCP patients with a history of alcohol abuse or dependence (AAD) and pain that is refractory to nonopioid treatment options may still need opioids for pain management. However, there is a lack of data on adverse outcomes in long-term opioid users with CNCP and a history of substance abuse or AAD disorders. To compare adverse outcomes and all-cause health care costs among CNCP patients on long-term opioid treatment with and without a previous diagnosis of AAD. Using MarketScan claims databases (2006-2012), CNCP patients with ≥ 90 days of opioid supply after CNCP diagnosis and continuous enrollment 12 months before CNCP diagnosis (baseline period) and 12 months after opioid start (post-index period) were identified. AAD was defined by diagnosis codes at any time before opioid initiation. Outcomes included opioid overdose, accident, and injury episodes identified by ICD-9-CM diagnoses codes. T-tests and Mann-Whitney tests compared continuous measures, and chi-square and Fisher's exact tests compared categorical measures between those with and without AAD. Multivariable analyses for outcomes were conducted, adjusting for baseline differences between cohorts. Of 21,203 CNCP patients with long-term opioid treatment, 750 (3.5%) had an AAD diagnosis before opioid initiation. AAD patients were significantly younger (48.4 [SD ± 11.4] years vs. 52.8 [SD ± 14.8] years), less likely to be enrolled in Medicare (17% commercial vs. 4% Medicare), and more likely to be male (67% vs. 48%; all P < 0.001). There were no differences in type or number of CNCP diagnoses or Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores. Patients with AAD had significantly higher rates of depression and anxiety diagnoses, antidepressant and benzodiazepine use, and drug abuse/dependence diagnoses in the baseline period. Twelvemonth post-index rates of opioid overdose (1.2% vs. 0.2%), accident (7.3% vs. 2.8%), and injury (46.1% vs. 36.8%) were greater in the AAD cohort (all P < 0.001). The differences were nonsignificant for accidents in multivariable analyses. While mean prescription costs were similar ($3,562 vs. $3,312; P = 0.212), AAD patients had significantly higher mean all-cause medical costs ($28,429 vs. $22,082; P < 0.001) and significantly higher all-cause total health care costs ($31,991 vs. $25,395; P < 0.001). The cost differences remained significant in multivariable analyses. In the first year after long-term opioid initiation, CNCP patients with a previous AAD diagnosis had 5 times the rate of opioid overdose, 2.3 times the rate of accidents, 1.2 times the rate of injury, and higher all-cause health care costs compared with those not diagnosed with AAD. Funding for this research study and resultant publication was provided by Teva Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, which fully reviewed the manuscript. Gajria and Yeung are employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals. White was an employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals at the time this research was conducted. Blumberg and Coutinho are employees of Xcenda, which received research funding from Teva Pharmaceuticals for the conduct of this study and for the preparation of this manuscript. Katz has received research funding and consulting fees from Teva Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study. Study concept and design were contributed by Katz, White, and Blumberg, along with Coutinho and Yeung. Coutinho took the lead in data collection, assisted by the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Blumberg, Katz, and Gajria, along with the other authors. The manuscript was written by Gajria, Yeung, Coutinho, and Blumberg, along with Katz and White, and revised by Gajria, Blumberg, Katz, and Coutinho, along with Yeung and White.

PSY31 - EVALUATING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN AND HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION OF ANEMIA IN THE US MEDICARE POPULATION

To examine the economic burden and health care utilization of anemia in the US Medicare population. Patients diagnosed with anemia were identified (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes: 280-285) using national Medicare data from 01JAN2009-31DEC2013. The first diagnosis date was designated as the index date. A comparison cohort was created for patients without anemia using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to control demographics and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The index date was chosen randomly for the comparison cohort to minimize selection bias. Patients in both the disease and control cohorts were required to have continuous medical and pharmacy benefits 1 year before and 1 year after the index date. Study outcomes, including health care costs and utilization, were compared between the disease and comparison cohorts based on the matched sample. After 1:1 PSM matching, 234,625 patients were identified in each cohort; the baseline characteristics were well balanced. Patients with anemia were more likely to report inpatient (36.99% vs. 10.09%), emergency room (ER) (27.35% vs. 17.00%), physician office (98.06% vs. 84.93%), outpatient hospital (79.98% vs. 62.72%), Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) (12.77% vs. 2.27%), Home Health Agency (HHA) (21.21% vs. 5.80%), and Durable Medical Equipment (DME) utilization (37.39% vs. 23.70%). Higher all-cause health care costs were also observed for anemic patients, including inpatient ($9,264 vs. $1,468), ER ($300 vs. $128), physician office ($3,484 vs. $1,792), outpatient hospital ($6,522 vs. $3,110), SNF ($2,744 vs. $420), HHA ($1,168 vs. $287), DME ($393 vs. $191), Part D pharmacy ($1,752 vs. $1,325), and total costs ($25,947 vs. $9,009; all p<0.0001). During a 12-month period, Medicare patients diagnosed with anemia reported higher health care utilization and costs than their matched controls.

Patient Characteristics, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Treatment-Regimen Failure with Biologics in the Treatment of Psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic, incurable, and immune-mediated skin disorder that is characterized by erythematous scaly papules and plaques. Understanding of psoriasis at the molecular level has led to the development of biologic agents that target disease-specific inflammatory mediators in psoriatic lesions. Biologic agents have become important components of the psoriasis armamentarium, but some patients become refractory to these agents over time or fail to respond to subsequent biologics. To (a) evaluate demographic and clinical characteristics of psoriasis patients who have treatment patterns suggestive of failure to a newly initiated biologic agent (treatment-regimen failures) compared with those who do not (non-treatment-regimen failures) and (b) to assess health care-related resource utilization and costs in non-treatment-regimen failures and treatment-regimen failures. In this retrospective observational cohort study, patients were selected from the MarketScan claims database of commercially insured individuals and individuals with Medicare supplemental insurance. The index event was a newly initiated biologic agent for the treatment of psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, ustekinumab, or infliximab) between January 2010 and December 2011. The analysis included psoriasis patients aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 1 prescription claim for a biologic and continuous enrollment 12 months pre- and post-index date. Patients with claims for a biologic in the pre-index period were excluded. Patients were divided into treatment-regimen-failure and non-treatment-regimen-failure groups based on their treatment patterns post-index date. The treatment-regimen-failure group included patients who switched to another biologic, discontinued the biologic without restarting, increased the dose of the biologic, or augmented treatment with a nontopical psoriasis medication during the post-index period. Between-group patient characteristics and medication use were compared using analysis of variance for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables without adjustment. Cost differences were compared using the propensity score-adjusted bin bootstrapping method. Overall, 2,146 patients met the enrollment criteria. The mean age was 45.1 years. Of these patients, 41.5% were considered treatment-regimen failures. Among treatment-regimen failures, 53% were females, and among non-treatment-regimen failures, 61% were male. Patients who experienced treatment-regimen failure had higher incidences of comorbid cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, chronic pulmonary disease, depression, and anxiety in the pre-index period and were more likely to use concomitant topicals (67.0% vs. 58.4%; P < 0.001), methotrexate (20.2% vs. 7.3%; P < 0.001), and cyclosporine (3.1% vs. 1.0%; P < 0.001) in the post-index period. Mean total all-cause health care costs were higher in patients with treatment-regimen failure versus non-treatment-regimen failure during the pre-index period ($8,024 vs. $6,637; P = 0.002), but patients with non-treatment-regimen failure had higher all-cause costs ($30,759 vs. $28,012; P = 0.002) and psoriasis-related costs ($25,286 vs. $19,625; P < 0.001) during the post-index period. The results of the current study demonstrated that psoriasis patients with treatment patterns suggestive of treatment-regimen failure on an index biologic had different characteristics and incurred higher all-cause health care costs than did patients without treatment-regimen failure during the pre-index period. This study was supported by Eli Lilly and Company. Foster, Zhu, Guo, Nikai, Malatestinic, Ojeh, and Goldblum are full-time employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Kornberg is a full-time employee of INC Research, which was contracted by Eli Lilly to assist with medical writing. Wu has received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Coherus Biosciences, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sandoz; he is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Dermira, DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. Study concept was developed by Foster, Ojeh, Malatestinic, and Goldblum. Zhu and Guo, along with Foster, took the lead in data collection, and data interpretation was performed by Nikai, Wu, and Foster, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was primarily written by Kornberg, along with Foster, with assistance from the other authors. All of the authors were involved with manuscript revision.

The burden of metastatic melanoma

Using a large national claims database, this study investigates the differences in survival and healthcare costs of metastatic melanoma patients by the number of metastatic sites. An analysis was carried out using data obtained from January 2007 to March 2010. Patients included had at least two claims for metastatic disease at least 30 days apart, at least two claims for melanoma at least 30 days apart, or at least one claim for cancer-related treatment with a diagnosis of melanoma and evidence of anticancer systemic therapy. The index date was the first metastatic diagnosis date. Patients were characterized as having evidence of lymph node (LN) involvement only, 1-3 distant metastatic sites, or 4+ distant metastatic sites. Average per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs and mortality were examined. There were 431 metastatic melanoma patients: most were male (65%) with mean baseline Charlson's comorbidity index of 3.52. The mean (SD) total unadjusted costs PPPM in the follow-up period were lower for patients with metastases to LN only ($6773 [$5521]) than for those who had 1-3 ($10 999 [$11 319]) or 4+ ($15 762 [$12 377]) distant metastases (P<0.001). When compared with patients with LN metastases only, patients having 1-3 [cost ratio (CR): 1.739, P<0.001] or 4+ (CR: 2.375, P<0.001) distant metastatic sites had higher all-cause healthcare costs. Among the entire study cohort, 42% died with a median survival time of 270 days. Mortality varied by cohort: 3% in LN only; 37% in 1-3 non-LN, and 64% in >3 non-LN (P<0.001). In conclusion, patients with metastatic melanoma with a greater number of metastatic sites have increased healthcare costs and significantly worse survival times.

Clinical and economic outcomes of multiple versus single long-acting inhalers in COPD

To compare healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs between COPD patients who used multiple long-acting inhalers versus those who used a single long-acting inhaler. COPD patients meeting study inclusion criteria were identified in the Market Scan database (2004-2008) and were classified as being a multiple- or single-inhaler user. 11,747 multiple- and single-inhaler users were matched on baseline characteristics to balance disease severity. Patients were followed for 12 months. Incremental differences between the two groups were estimated for: number of exacerbations; time to first exacerbation; all-cause and COPD-related inpatient admissions, inpatient days, emergency room visits, urgent care visits, outpatient visits, and other medical services visits; all-cause and COPD-related healthcare costs. Multivariate regression analyses were also used to control for a number of potentially confounding factors. After controlling for a number of potentially confounding factors, multiple-inhaler users experienced significantly more exacerbations (0.52; p < .0001) and had a higher risk of exacerbation (HR = 1.40; p < .0001) than single-inhaler users. Multiple-inhaler users also incurred significantly more inpatient admissions (IRR = 1.15; p < .0001), inpatient days (IRR = 1.20; p < .0001), urgent care visits (IRR = 1.10; p = 0.0026), outpatient visits (IRR = 1.06; p < .0001), and other medical services visits (IRR = 1.12; p = <.001) than single-inhaler users, resulting in significantly higher all-cause health care costs ($3,319; p < .0001). Results of COPD-related resource use and costs were comparable. After controlling for a number of potentially confounding factors, multiple-inhaler users had more exacerbations, a higher risk of exacerbation, and higher healthcare resource utilization and costs compared to single-inhaler users.

Pharmacy and medical costs associated with switching between venlafaxine and SSRI antidepressant therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder.

While much has been published on utilization of antidepressants and associated resource use, surprisingly little information is available on the relationship between a change in antidepressant agent and health care utilization. Given that many patients will not respond to initial therapy (and therefore would be candidates for switching treatment) and the array of antidepressant medications on the market, information on the impact of switching would be beneficial to both providers and policymakers. To explore patterns of antidepressant drug use and depression-related and all-cause medical costs for patients who switched therapy between 2 drug classes, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine. Using an administrative claims database of 36 million members from 61 health plans, this retrospective cohort analysis examined patients who had (1) a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 296.2x for MDD single episode, 296.3x for MDD recurrent episode, 300.4 for dysthymic disorder, and 311 for depressive disorder not elsewhere classified) and (2) a newly prescribed antidepressant during the year 2002. Costs were defined as amounts paid by health plans for all inpatient, outpatient, physician and pharmacy services (i.e., allowed charges after subtraction of member cost-share). Depression-related costs were defined using (1) medical claims with primary diagnosis of depression and (2) pharmacy claims for antidepressants. Using an index date of the first antidepressant claim, 12 months of pre-index and postindex data were available for all eligible patients. Switching was defined as occurring between the SSRIs and venlafaxine (i.e., patients who switched within the SSRI drug class across different SSRIs were treated as non-switchers until they switched to venlafaxine), and there was no minimum or maximum gap in therapy. The SSRIs included fluoxetine, citalopram, sertraline, and paroxetine; the only SNRI on the market at the time was venlafaxine. Multivariate regression analyses determined predictors of switching and factors influencing overall and depression-related costs, while controlling for confounding factors. For the 12-month period following the index date (fixed length of follow-up), the study compared per-patient per-year (PPPY) costs for (1) patients who switched versus those who did not switch and (2) patients with single versus multiple trials of SSRI for the subgroup of patients who switched from an SSRI to venlafaxine. For the time periods before versus after the switch (variable lengths of follow-up), per-patient means and medians of monthly cost averages (with follow-up periods <1 month set to 1 month for 16.5% [n=272] of SSRI-to-venlafaxine switchers and 14.1% [n=103] of venlafaxine-to-SSRI switchers) were calculated for the subgroup of patients who made a switch. A total of 48,950 patients were included in the study, with 43,653 (89.2%) treated first with SSRIs and 5,297 (10.8%) treated first with venlafaxine. Of the initial SSRI users, 1,645 (3.8%) switched to venlafaxine, and of the initial venlafaxine users, 733 (13.8%) switched to an SSRI. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) 12-month total (medical plus pharmacy) depression-related costs in 2002-2003 dollars were 118.0% higher for SSRI switchers ($1,225 [$3,438] vs. $562 [$2,153], P<0.001) and 18.4% higher for venlafaxine switchers ($863 [$1,503] vs. $729 [$1,185], P=0.021) as compared with non-switchers. From the pre-switch to post-switch periods, depression-related mean monthly medical costs declined by 66.4% among switchers from SSRIs ($113 [$912] vs. $38 [$347], P=0.001) and by 61.1% among switchers from venlafaxine ($54 [$299] vs. $21 [$138], P=0.005). Monthly mean depression-related pharmacy costs increased by 62.2% following a switch from an SSRI to venlafaxine (from $45 [$38] to $73 [$62], P<0.001) and declined by 17.3% following a switch from venlafaxine to an SSRI (from $52 [$45] to $43 [$38], P<0.001). After adjustment for multiple covariates including demographic characteristics, 10 selected comorbidities, and physician specialty, general linear models with log-transformed costs as the dependent variables demonstrated significant associations between switching and total costs (both all-cause and depression-related) in both the SSRI and the venlafaxine cohorts. Although relatively few patients switched antidepressant drug classes, patients who made a switch had higher all-cause health care costs and higher depression-related costs than patients who did not switch. Switching drug classes was associated with lower mean monthly depression-related health care costs following the switch. For those patients switching from an SSRI to venlafaxine, mean medical cost reductions offset higher pharmacy costs; for patients switching from venlafaxine to an SSRI, mean medical and pharmacy costs declined.

Administrative claims analysis of all-cause annual costs of care and resource utilization by age category for ulcerative colitis patients.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease with peak incidence in the third decade of life and a second peak in the sixth or seventh decade. While drug therapy can be used to control the inflammation and reduce symptoms, patients with UC may be treated surgically. There is little information in the published literature evaluating the all-cause health care costs of patients with UC according to age. To assess from administrative claims the direct all-cause (not disease-related) costs of care and resource utilization for patients with UC compared with members without UC by 3 age categories. A retrospective analysis was conducted using the PharMetrics database of patients with a diagnosis of UC (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 556.x) from January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2005. This database contains enrollment data and pharmacy and medical claims from more than 85 different managed care organizations and more than 55 million patients in the United States. Patients had to be continuously enrolled for 6 months before and 12 months after the initial UC diagnosis and have at least 2 distinct claims with a diagnosis code for UC. The mean per-patient health care resource utilization and costs were calculated for patients in the year following their initial UC diagnosis and compared with the same measures for a group of age- and gender-matched members (without UC claims) at a ratio of 4:1. Three age groups were analyzed: pediatric-adolescent (aged < 18 years), adults (aged 18 to 64 years), and older adults (aged e 65 years). Differences in the measures of all-cause health care resource utilization (claims and costs) between the UC and non-UC groups were tested for statistical significance using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a non-parametric alternative to the paired t test. Differences between the 3 age cohorts were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test. Data were collected for 15,105 patients with UC and for 59,159 members in the comparator cohort without UC matched by age and gender. The average age for both cohorts was 44 years, and 54% were female. Mean ([SD], median) annual all-cause total health care costs in 2005 dollars for patients with UC were $13,233 ([$40,715], $5,190) versus $3,214 ([$12,741], $753) for the comparator group (P < 0.001). For all UC patients, all-cause inpatient hospitalization costs constituted the largest component ($5,771, 43.6%) of the mean annual total costs, followed by prescription medications ($2,423, 18.3%); miscellaneous services, such as hospice, psychiatric facility, and nursing home care ($2,092, 15.8%); outpatient hospital visits ($1,310, 9.9%); physician office visits ($899, 6.8%); laboratory procedures ($470, 3.6%); and emergency department visits ($268, 2.0%). Resource utilization (e.g., physician visits, laboratory claims, pharmacy claims) was highest for older adults aged e 65 years, followed by pediatricadolescent patients and adults aged 18 to 64 years (all comparisons P < 0.01). The mean ([SD], median) all-cause total health care costs were highest for pediatric-adolescent patients with UC (n = 589, 3.9%) at $23,113 ([$70,999], $6,214), followed by older adults (n = 650, 4.3%) at $15,811 ([$23,882], $6,886, P < 0.001), while adults aged 18 to 64 years (n = 13,866, 91.8%) incurred the lowest cost at $12,693 ([$39,505], $5,108, P < 0.001). Patients with UC identified from medical claims incurred significantly higher all-cause health care costs for all 3 age categories than did the comparator group of health plan members without diagnosis for UC.