Search

To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the economic burden associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children and adolescents from a US societal perspective.Direct healthcare costs of children (5-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) with ADHD were obtained using claims data from the IBM MarketScan Research Databases (01/01/2017-12/31/2018). Direct non-healthcare and indirect costs were estimated based on literature and government publications. Each cost component was estimated using a prevalence-based approach, with per-patient costs extrapolated to the national level.The total annual societal excess costs associated with ADHD were estimated at $19.4 billion among children ($6,799 per child) and $13.8 billion among adolescents ($8,349 per adolescent). Education costs contributed to approximately half of the total excess costs in both populations ($11.6 billion [59.9%] in children; $6.7 billion [48.8%] in adolescents). Other major contributors to the overall burden were direct healthcare costs ($5.0 billion [25.9%] in children; $4.0 billion [29.0%] in adolescents) and caregiving costs ($2.7 billion [14.1%] in children; $1.6 billion [11.5%] in adolescents).Cost estimates were calculated based on available literature and/or governmental publications due to the absence of a single data source for all costs associated with ADHD. Thus, the quality of cost estimates is limited by the accuracy of available data as well as the study populations and methodologies used by different studies.ADHD in children and adolescents is associated with a substantial economic burden that is largely driven by education costs, followed by direct healthcare costs and caregiver costs. Improved intervention strategies and policies may reduce the clinical and economic burden of ADHD in these populations.

Aims To describe healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) treated with hypomethylating agents (HMA) based on HMA-treatment response. Materials and methods SEER-Medicare data (January 2006-December 2016) were used to identify adults diagnosed with MDS (SEER: January 2009-December 2015) initiated on HMA (index date). HMA-treatment success (indicators: ≥7 HMA cycles, stem cell transplantation, and transfusion independence) or failure (indicators: acute myeloid leukemia [AML], AML-like treatment, and death) was determined using a claim-based algorithm. HRU and costs were assessed from the index date to 1-year post-index, overall and stratified by HMA-treatment success or failure. Among patients with HMA-treatment failure, HRU and costs were also assessed from failure to 1-year post-failure. Results The study included 3,046 patients (mean age: 77.4 years; females: 36.8%). Rates of HMA-treatment success and failure were 44.4% and 76.2%, respectively (20.6% had HMA-treatment success then failure). Overall, patients had 15.2 inpatient admissions per-100-patients-per-month (median follow-up: 5.9 months). Patients with HMA-treatment success had 7.5 inpatient admissions per-100-patients-per-month (median follow-up: 12.0 months), while those with HMA-treatment failure had 20.4 and 35.3 admissions per-100-patients-per-month pre- and post-HMA-treatment failure, respectively (median follow-up: 4.3 and 1.8 months, pre- and post-HMA-treatment failure, respectively). Mean total healthcare costs were $12,494 per-patient-per-month overall, $8,069 per-patient-per-month among patients with HMA-treatment success, and $13,809 and $19,242 per-patient-per-month pre- and post-HMA-treatment failure, respectively. Outpatient costs (68.3%) were the main contributor of total healthcare costs overall, while inpatient costs (80.3%) were the main cost driver post-HMA-treatment failure. Limitations Without available laboratory test results, clinical indicators observed in claims were used to assess HMA-treatment response. Conclusions Over 75% of patients with MDS failed HMA-treatment within 6 months of initiation and were observed with more inpatient admissions than those with HMA-treatment success, translating into substantially higher healthcare costs. HMA-treatment failure results in an important economic burden in MDS patients.

Aim: To characterize vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) and describe healthcare costs among commercially-insured, Medicaid-insured, and Medicare-insured patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). Materials and Methods: The IBM Truven Health MarketScan Commercial (2000-2018), Medicaid Analytic eXtract (2008–2014), and Medicare Research Identifiable Files (2012–2016) databases were used to identify patients with ≥2 SCD diagnoses. Study measures were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period, stratified by annual number of VOCs (i.e., 0, 1, and ≥2). Results: Among 16,092 commercially-insured patients (mean age =36.7 years), 35.3% had 1+ VOCs. Mean annual total all-cause healthcare costs were $15,747, $27,194, and $64,555 for patients with 0, 1, and 2+ VOCs, respectively. Total all-cause healthcare costs were mainly driven by inpatient (0 VOC =31.0%, 1 VOC =53.1%, 2+ VOCs =65.4%) and SCD-related costs (0 VOC =56.4%, 1 VOC =78.4%, 2+ VOCs =93.9%). Among 18,287 Medicaid-insured patients (mean age =28.5 years, fee-for-service =50.2%), 63.9% had 1+ VOCs. Mean annual total all-cause healthcare costs were $16,750, $29,880, and $64,566 for patients with 0, 1, and 2+ VOCs, respectively. Inpatient costs (0 VOC =37.2%, 1 VOC =64.3%, 2+ VOCs =72.9%) and SCD-related costs (0 VOC =60.9%, 1 VOC =73.8%, 2+ VOCs =92.2%) accounted for a significant proportion of total all-cause healthcare costs. Among 15,431 Medicare-insured patients (mean age =48.2 years), 55.1% had 1+ VOCs. Mean annual total all-cause healthcare costs were $21,877, $29,250, and $58,308 for patients with 0, 1, and ≥2 VOCs, respectively. Total all-cause healthcare costs were mainly driven by inpatient (0 VOC =47.9%, 1 VOC =54.9%, 2+ VOCs =67.5%) and SCD-related costs (0 VOC =74.9%, 1 VOC =84.4%, 2+ VOCs =95.3%). Limitations: VOCs managed at home were not captured. Analyses were descriptive in an observational setting; thus, no causal relationships can be inferred. Conclusions: A high proportion of patients experienced VOCs across payers. Furthermore, inpatient and SCD-related costs accounted for a significant proportion of total all-cause healthcare costs, which increased with VOC frequency.

To assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs among women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- aBC) treated with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. Women with HR+/HER2- aBC, initiating CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment were identified using IBM MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (Q1/2000-Q3/2018). Based on the first CDK4/6 patients received (index therapy), three cohorts were identified: abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib. The baseline period (6-months preceding treatment initiation) was used to describe patient characteristics. All-cause HRU and direct total healthcare costs (medical and pharmacy) from treatment initiation until the earliest of the end of index therapy, continuous health plan enrollment, or data availability, were compared for the ribociclib cohort versus the abemaciclib and palbociclib cohorts, separately, using weighted regression analyses balanced on baseline covariates. Average age at treatment initiation was ∼60 years and the majority of patients were postmenopausal (abemaciclib: 92%; palbociclib: 92%; ribociclib: 79%). Average follow-up duration was 3.9, 8.8, and 5.9 months for the abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib cohorts, respectively. After reweighting, HRU was not statistically different between the ribociclib and abemaciclib cohorts, however, the ribociclib cohort incurred significantly lower total healthcare costs (-$5,452; 95% CI: -$8,726; -$1,139, p = 0.01). Medical costs (driven by outpatient costs) and pharmacy costs (driven by CDK4/6 inhibitor costs) were significantly lower for the ribociclib cohort. Among the reweighted ribociclib and palbociclib cohorts, HRU and total healthcare costs were not statistically different, although the ribociclib cohort had lower outpatient costs per-patient-per-month (-$1,245, 95% CI: -$2,349; -$37, p = 0.04). Due to the retrospective, observational design, treatment cohorts were not randomly assigned. During CDK4/6 therapy, ribociclib patients tended to incur lower medical and pharmacy costs than abemaciclib patients. Among ribociclib and palbociclib patients, HRU and healthcare costs were similar.

To assess the time to BRAF testing, compare the characteristics of tested vs not-tested patients, and describe the costs for sequential vs next-generation sequencing (NGS) BRAF testing.Patients diagnosed with lung cancer after December 1, 2013 were identified from two US claims databases; their characteristics were assessed during the 12 months before diagnosis (index date). Testing modalities were analyzed from the index date to end of continuous health plan enrollment or data availability (December 2015), based on combinations of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) procedure codes. Time to BRAF testing was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Costs were analyzed from a payer's perspective.A total of 28,011 patients newly-diagnosed with lung cancer were identified. Of them, 1,260 (4.5%) were tested for BRAF: 3.2% and 4.2% were tested at 6 and 12 months, respectively, after the index date. Compared to non-tested patients, tested patients were younger (58.3 vs 65.3 years; p .001), had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (2.8 vs 2.9; p = .005), and a higher proportion had metastases (70.9% vs 43.4%; p .001). In 76.0% of cases, BRAF was tested along with KRAS. BRAF was tested using NGS in 6.6% of cases. The average reimbursed amounts for the 10 most common CPT code combinations were $207-$2,074. Using the average costs of individual mutation tests, the total cost of sequential testing comprising KRAS, EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF tests was $3,763 ($464, $696, $1,070, $1,127, and $406, respectively), that of NGS was $2,860.Claims data did not include BRAF test results.Among patients newly-diagnosed with lung cancer, 4.5% were tested for BRAF. Tested patients were younger and had a lower comorbidity burden, but more advanced disease. While reimbursed amounts varied greatly based on combinations of testing procedures, NGS testing was associated with cost savings compared to sequential testing of individual mutations.

Objective: To describe the setting, duration, and costs of induction and consolidation chemotherapy for adults with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), who are candidates for standard induction chemotherapy, in the US. Methods: Adults newly-diagnosed with AML who received standard induction chemotherapy in an inpatient setting were identified from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (2006–2015) and SEER-Medicare (2007–2011) databases. Patients were observed from induction therapy start to the first of hematopoietic stem cell transplant, 180 days after induction discharge, health plan enrollment/data availability end, or death. Induction and consolidation chemotherapy were identified using Diagnosis-Related Group codes (chemotherapy with acute leukemia) or procedure codes for AML chemotherapy administration. AML treatment episode setting (inpatient or outpatient), duration, and costs (2015 USD, payers’ perspective) were described for commercially insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries. Results: In total, 459 commercially insured patients and 563 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age = 54 and 66 years; 53% and 54% male; respectively) were identified. For induction therapy, mean costs were $145,189 for commercially insured patients and $85,734 for Medicare beneficiaries, and median inpatient duration was 31 days (both). Following induction, 64% of commercially insured patients and 53% of Medicare beneficiaries had ≥1 consolidation cycle; 75% and 65% of consolidation cycles were in an inpatient setting, respectively. For consolidation cycles, in the inpatient setting, mean costs were $28,137 for commercially insured patients and $28,843 for Medicare beneficiaries, median cycle duration was 6 days (both); in the outpatient setting, mean costs were $11,271 for commercially insured patients and $5,803 Medicare beneficiaries, median duration was 5 days (both). Limitations: Granular information on chemotherapy type administered was unavailable. Conclusions: This is the first exploratory study providing a complete picture of recent AML treatment patterns and management costs among commercially insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries. There is substantial heterogeneity in the management and costs of AML.

Dear Editor, In a recently published original research article by Wu et al. 1 , a matching-adjusted indirect comparative (MAIC) analysis was conducted to assess the incremental cost per responder a...

Objective Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is often treated by surgery. The risk of recurrence after surgery is common and the consequences are substantial, but neither has been quantified using a claims database. This study aimed to estimate the burden associated with non-curative surgery in HS patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of health insurance claims data from Q1 1999 to Q2 2011 in a US claims database. The analysis included 2668 adults with ≥1 diagnosis of HS and ≥1 claim for skin surgery within 6 months after diagnosis. Healthcare resource utilization and medical costs were compared using multivariate regressions. Results Overall, 46% of HS patients had ≥1 indicator of non-curative surgery. The incidences of inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient visits were 88%, 40%, and 30% higher, respectively, for patients with non-curative surgery vs patients without indicator of non-curative surgery (all p

Aims: Antipsychotic medications are associated with an increased risk of hyperprolactinemia, but differ in their propensity to cause this complication. This study aimed to assess the economic burden of hyperprolactinemia, and to compare its risk among adult patients using atypical antipsychotics (AAs) with a mechanism of action associated with no/low vs high/moderate prolactin elevation. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on US Commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Healthcare costs were compared between matched hyperprolactinemia and hyperprolactinemia-free cohorts using a two-part model. Risk of hyperprolactinemia was compared between patients receiving AAs with a mechanism of action associated with no/low (no/low prolactin elevation cohort) vs high/moderate prolactin elevation (high/moderate prolactin cohort) using logistic regression. Results: In the commercially insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort (n = 499), the hyperprolactinemia cohort (n = 499) was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $5,732 ($20,081 vs $14,349; p = .004), and incremental medical costs of $3,861 ($13,218 vs $9,357; p = .040), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related costs. In the Medicaid-insured sample, compared to the hyperprolactinemia-free cohort, the hyperprolactinemia cohort was associated with incremental total healthcare costs of $10,773 ($30,763 vs $19,990; p = .004), and incremental medical costs of $9,246 ($20,859 vs $11,613; p = .004), mainly driven by hyperprolactinemia-related and mental health-related costs. The odds of hyperprolactinemia in the no/low prolactin elevation cohort were 4–5-times lower than that in the high/moderate prolactin elevation cohort (odds ratio =0.21; p Limitations: Hyperprolactinemia may be under-reported in claims data. Conclusions: Hyperprolactinemia is associated with substantial healthcare costs. AAs associated with no/low prolactin elevation reduce the risk of hyperprolactinemia by 4–5-times compared to AAs associated with moderate/high prolactin elevation. Treatment options with minimal impact on prolactin levels may contribute to reducing hyperprolactinemia burden in AA-treated patients.

To describe the distribution of costs and to identify the drivers of high costs among adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral hypoglycemic agents.T2DM patients using oral hypoglycemic agents and having HbA1c test data were identified from the Truven MarketScan databases of Commercial and Medicare Supplemental insurance claims (2004-2010). All-cause and diabetes-related annual direct healthcare costs were measured and reported by cost components. The 25% most costly patients in the study sample were defined as high-cost patients. Drivers of high costs were identified in multivariate logistic regressions.Total 1-year all-cause costs for the 4104 study patients were $55,599,311 (mean cost per patient = $13,548). Diabetes-related costs accounted for 33.8% of all-cause costs (mean cost per patient = $4583). Medical service costs accounted for the majority of all-cause and diabetes-related total costs (63.7% and 59.5%, respectively), with a minority of patients incurring80% of these costs (23.5% and 14.7%, respectively). Within the medical claims, inpatient admission for diabetes-complications was the strongest cost driver for both all-cause (OR = 13.5, 95% CI = 8.1-23.6) and diabetes-related costs (OR = 9.7, 95% CI = 6.3-15.1), with macrovascular complications accounting for most inpatient admissions. Other cost drivers included heavier hypoglycemic agent use, diabetes complications, and chronic diseases.The study reports a conservative estimate for the relative share of diabetes-related costs relative to total cost. The findings of this study apply mainly to T2DM patients under 65 years of age.Among the T2DM patients receiving oral hypoglycemic agents, 23.5% of patients incurred 80% of the all-cause healthcare costs, with these costs being driven by inpatient admissions, complications of diabetes, and chronic diseases. Interventions targeting inpatient admissions and/or complications of diabetes may contribute to the decrease of the diabetes economic burden.

Molecular monitoring of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has been associated with improved clinical outcomes during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (TKI), yet recent studies have demonstrated its use is far below published guidelines. This study sought to determine frequencies of molecular monitoring and its impact on resource utilization and medical costs.A retrospective US claims administrative database (IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims and Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, 11/2007-06/2012) was used to analyze the economic impact of qPCR testing in CML patients on first-line TKIs during the initial 12-months of treatment.One thousand two hundred and five adult CML patients met the sample selection criteria. Among these, 41.0% had no qPCR tests, 31.9% had 1-2 tests, and 27.1% had 3-4 tests; 88.9% were initiated on imatinib; 47.7% were female. Patients in the 3-4 tests cohort incurred 44% (p 0.001) fewer in-patient (IP) admissions than patients in the 0-tests cohort. Adjusted all-cause IP cost was $5663 (p = 0.005) lower for the 3-4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort. Adjusted progression-related IP cost was $4132 (p = 0.013) lower for the 3-4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort. Adjusted medical service cost was $5997 (p = 0.049) lower for the 3-4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort.Claims databases did not include information on the primary cause of hospitalizations.Among CML patients in two large claims databases, nearly three-quarters did not receive adequate molecular monitoring per published guidelines. Those who were more frequently monitored incurred lower medical service costs, with the majority of the difference in costs being related to disease progression. These findings underscore the clinical and economic values of molecular monitoring in CML.

To compare therapy augmentation and deviation rates from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) patients initiated on lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other once-daily Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved stimulants.ADHD patients initiated on a long-acting ADHD stimulant medication (index medication) in/after 2007 were selected from a large U.S. administrative claims database. Patients were required to be persistent for ≥90 days and continuously enrolled in their healthcare plan for ≥12 months following treatment initiation date. Based on age and previous treatment status, patients were classified into treatment-naïve children and adolescents (6-17 years old), previously treated children and adolescents, treatment-naïve adults (≥18 years old), and previously treated adults. Furthermore, patients were classified into four mutually exclusive treatment groups, based on index medication: lisdexamfetamine (LDX), osmotic release methylphenidate hydrochloride long-acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate long-acting (MPH LA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine long-acting (AMPH LA). The average daily consumption was measured as the quantity of index medication supplied in the 12-month study period divided by the total number of days of supply. Therapy augmentation was defined as the use of another ADHD medication concomitantly with the index medication for ≥28 consecutive days. Therapy augmentation and deviation rates from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen were compared between treatment groups using multivariate logistic regression models.Compared to the other treatment groups, LDX patients were less likely to augment with another ADHD medication (range odds ratios [OR]; 1.28-3.30) and to deviate from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen (range OR; 1.73-4.55), except for previously treated adult patients, where therapy augmentation differences were not statistically significant when compared to OROS MPH and MPH LA patients.This study did not control for ADHD severity.Overall, compared to LDX-treated patients, patients initiated on other ADHD medications were equally or more likely to have a therapy augmentation and more likely to deviate from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen.

To compare treatment patterns and economic outcomes of dasatinib and nilotinib as 1st-line therapies for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).Adult CML patients initiated on first-line dasatinib or nilotinib in 2010-2014 were identified from two large US administrative claims databases. Treatment patterns, tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) adherence and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs were measured from the 1st-line TKI initiation (index date) to the end of follow-up.A total of 604 and 418 patients were included in the dasatinib and nilotinib cohorts (mean ages = 50.9 and 52.5 years, 46.4% and 45.7% female), respectively. Among the dasatinib patients, 91% started with 100 mg/day, 3% with100 mg/day, and 6% with100 mg/day. Among the nilotinib patients, 76% started with 600 mg/day, 16% with600 mg/day, and 8%600 mg/day. The dasatinib cohort had a higher hazard of dose decrease (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; p = .002) and of switching to another TKI (HR =1.62; p = .019) compared to the nilotinib cohort. The hazard of dose increase (HR =0.76; p = .423) and treatment discontinuation (HR =1.10; p = .372) were not significantly different between cohorts. There was also no significant difference in TKI adherence levels (mean proportion of days covered [PDC] difference over first 6 months = -0.0003, p = .981; mean PDC difference over first 12 months = -0.0022, p = .880) and HRU (inpatient day incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.03, p = .930; emergency room IRR =1.26, p = .197; and days with outpatient services IRR = 1.01, p = .842). The dasatinib cohort incurred higher healthcare costs by $749 per patient per month (p = .044) compared to the nilotinib cohort.Information on CML phase and Sokal score was not available.Dasatinib was associated with an increased hazard of dose decrease and switching to another TKI and higher healthcare costs, vs nilotinib.

Brain metastases among lung cancer patients can impair cognitive and functional ability, complicate care, and reduce survival. This study focuses on the economic burden of brain metastasis in lung cancer-direct healthcare costs to payers and indirect costs to patients, payers, and employers-in the US.Retrospective study using claims data from over 60 self-insured Fortune 500 companies across all US census regions (January 1999-March 2013). Adult, non-elderly lung cancer patients with brain metastasis were evaluated over two study periods: (1) pre-diagnosis (≤30 days prior to first observed lung cancer diagnosis to ≤30 days prior to first-observed brain metastasis diagnosis) and (2) post-diagnosis (≤30 days prior to first observed brain metastasis diagnosis to end of continuous eligibility or observation).Healthcare costs to payers and resource utilization, salary loss to patients, disability payouts for payers, and productivity loss to employers.A total of 132 patients were followed for a median of 8.4 and 6.6 months in the pre- and post-diagnosis periods, respectively. At diagnosis of brain metastasis, 21.2% of patients were on leave of absence and 6.1% on long-term disability leave. Substantial differences were observed in the pre- vs post-diagnosis periods. Specifically, patients incurred much greater healthcare utilization in the post-diagnosis period, resulting in $25,579 higher medical costs per-patient-per-6-months (PPP6M). During this period, patients missed significantly more work days, generating an incremental burden of $2853 PPP6M in salary loss for patients, $2557 PPP6M in disability payments for payers, and $4570 PPP6M in productivity loss for employers.Type of primary lung cancer and extent of brain metastasis could not be assessed in the data. The analysis was also limited to patients with comprehensive disability coverage.Development of brain metastasis among lung cancer patients is associated with a substantial economic burden to payers, patients, and employers.

Brain metastases (BM) are highly prevalent among anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients; yet little is known about their real-world treatment patterns and clinical and economic burdens. This study aimed to describe these patients' treatment patterns, symptoms, and costs.Retrospective study pooling data from three large administrative databases in the US (08/2011-06/2013). ALK+ NSCLC patients with BM and continuous enrollment for ≥ 60 days before and ≥ 30 days after the first observed BM diagnosis were identified by pharmacy records for crizotinib among patients with lung cancer and BM diagnostic codes.Treatment patterns, symptoms, healthcare resource utilization, and costs, before and after BM diagnosis.Of the 213 crizotinib patients with BM diagnoses meeting the selection criteria, 23.0% had BM prior to NSCLC diagnosis; 47.4% had BM prior to crizotinib initiation; 19.2% during crizotinib treatment; and 10.3% post-crizotinib treatment. For those diagnosed with BM after NSCLC diagnosis, the median time between the NSCLC and BM diagnoses was 88 days. Following the first observed BM diagnosis, 88.7% used chemotherapy, 63.4% had radiotherapy, and 31.9% had stereotactic radiosurgery. The prevalence of BM-related symptoms substantially increased post-BM-diagnosis: fatigue (from 15% to 39%), headaches (from 5% to 24%), and depression (from 5% to 15%). Monthly costs per patient averaged $5983 before the BM diagnosis and $22,645 after diagnosis. Patients' resource utilization increased significantly post-BM-diagnosis, with a 3-fold increase in OP visits and a 6-fold increase in IP stays. Post-BM-diagnosis costs were driven by pharmacy (42.0%), inpatient (29.6%), and outpatient costs (26.0%).The study sample was limited to crizotinib-treated patients.Post-BM-diagnosis, patients experience high symptom burden. Post-BM-diagnosis, treatment is highly variable and costly: average monthly costs per patient almost quadrupled post-BM-diagnosis.

To estimate the economic burden of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) recurrence in patients who received imatinib adjuvant therapy.Data from the MarketScan and PharmMetrics databases between January 2000 and March 2013 were extracted. Patients who had received at least one diagnosis of GIST, had undergone a primary surgery for GIST, and had received at least one prescription for imatinib were included in the analysis. An algorithm was applied to identify those who had a subsequent GIST recurrence. Patients who experienced a recurrence and those who did not have a recurrence were compared for differences in healthcare utilization measures and healthcare costs within 6 months after the recurrence, while adjusting for potential confounding factors.A total of 540 patients with primary resectable GIST who received imatinib adjuvant therapy were identified, including 444 (82.2%) patients who did not experience GIST recurrence and 96 (17.8%) patients who did experience recurrence. Patients who experienced GIST recurrence utilized significantly more healthcare resources in all categories than patients who did not have a recurrence, including the number of hospitalizations, days of hospitalization, emergency room visits, outpatient visits, and other medical services (all p-values0.01). The total healthcare cost was significantly higher for patients with GIST recurrence, with a difference of $4464 per patient per month (p 0.01). Both the medical and pharmacy costs were significantly higher with adjusted differences of $3488 and $1423 per patient per month, respectively (both p-values0.01).Patients who had GIST recurrence after surgical resection incurred significantly more healthcare resource utilization and greater healthcare costs within 6 months after the recurrence than patients who did not have recurrence. These findings suggest that GIST recurrence is associated with a substantial economic burden.

To compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) or chronic constipation (CC) with and without evidence of treatment failure.Claims data from the Missouri Medicaid program were used to identify adults with IBS-C or CC treated for constipation. IBS-C patients were required to have ≥2 constipation therapy claims, and the index date was defined as the date of the first constipation therapy claim within 12 months after an IBS diagnosis. For CC, the index date was defined as the date of the first constipation treatment claim followed by a second claim for constipation treatment or diagnosis between 60 days and 12 months later. Indicators of treatment failure were: switch/addition of constipation therapy, IBS- or constipation-related inpatient/emergency admission, megacolon/fecal impaction, constipation-related surgery/procedure, or aggressive prescription treatments. Annual incremental HRU and costs (public payer perspective) were compared between patients with and without treatment failure. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and cost differences are reported.In total, 2830 patients with IBS-C and 8745 with CC were selected. Approximately 50% of patients had ≥1 indicator of treatment failure. After adjusting for confounding factors, patients with treatment failure experienced higher HRU, particularly in inpatient days (IRR = 1.75 for IBS-C; IRR = 1.54 for CC) and higher total healthcare costs of $4353 in IBS-C patients and $2978 in CC patients. Medical service costs were the primary driver of the incremental costs associated with treatment failure, making up 71.3% and 67.0% of the total incremental healthcare costs of the IBS-C and CC samples, respectively.Sample was limited to Medicaid patients in Missouri. Claims data were used to infer treatment failure.Treatment failure is frequent among IBS-C and CC patients, and sub-optimal treatment response with available IBS-C and CC therapies may lead to substantial HRU and healthcare costs.

To compare treatment persistence in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) of patients initiated on lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other ADHD medications.A large US administrative claims database was used to select ADHD patients who initiated an ADHD medication (index treatment) during/after 2007. Patients were classified, based on age and previous treatment status, as treatment-naïve or previously treated children and adolescents (6-17 years) and treatment-naïve or previously treated adults (18 years and older). Furthermore, patients were classified into seven mutually exclusive treatment groups, based on their index treatment: LDX, atomoxetine (ATX), osmotic-release methylphenidate hydrochloride long-acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate short-acting (MPH SA) and long-acting (MPH LA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine short acting (AMPH SA) and long-acting (AMPH LA). Treatment persistence, analyzed through discontinuation (interruption of the index treatment for ≥30 consecutive days), was compared between treatment groups using multivariate Cox proportional hazards. Patients were followed until first treatment discontinuation or up to 12 months after the initiation of the index treatment, whichever occurred first.Among children and adolescents, LDX patients had a significantly lower discontinuation rate compared to other treatment groups (range hazard ratios [HRs]; 1.04-2.26; all p 0.05), except when compared to treatment-naïve patients on ATX and OROS MPH, where no statistically significant differences were found and where LDX had a higher risk of discontinuation, respectively. Among adults, LDX patients had a significantly lower discontinuation rate compared to patients in other treatment groups (range HR; 1.14-1.86; all p 0.05), except for the comparison with AMPH LA patients, where differences were not statistically significant.This study did not control for ADHD severity.LDX-treated patients were associated with higher persistence compared to patients initiated on other ADHD medications, except for the comparisons with OROS MPH and ATX treated patients in treatment-naïve children and adolescents and AMPH LA-treated patients in adults.

To estimate the economic consequences of changes in disease activity on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs.A retrospective longitudinal study of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients receiving care in a regional integrated health delivery system in the US from 01/2004 through 03/2011 was conducted using electronic health records, medical chart reviews, and claims. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, with ≥1 rheumatologist-confirmed SLE diagnosis and ≥1 eligible rheumatology encounter. Patients were continuously enrolled ≥90 days before and ≥30 days after the encounters. Charts were manually reviewed to estimate SLEDAI scores. Average unit costs of each medical procedure, facility use, and prescription were estimated from a payer perspective (2011 USD) using a managed care claims database. HRU and costs were calculated for the 30-day period surrounding every SLEDAI score date (10 days before and 19 after). Relationships between HRU/costs and SLEDAI scores were estimated using mixed-effect models.Overall, 178 SLE patients were included; mean age was 50.6 years, 91% were female, and 95.5% Caucasian. Patients had a total of 1343 encounters with SLEDAI scores over an average period of 1035 days. Reductions of SLEDAI scores were associated with reductions in HRU and costs. SLEDAI score reductions of 4-points were associated with reductions of 10% HRU and 14% costs over a 30-day period; reductions of 8-points had associated reductions of 19% HRU and 26% costs; and reductions of 10-points had associated reductions of 23% HRU and 31% costs. Annualized, changes in SLEDAI scores are associated with changes of $2485 (SLEDAI score change: 10-6), $4624 (10-2), and $5579 (10-0), respectively.Reductions in disease activity were associated with substantial reductions of HRU and costs.Only short-term effects of disease activity change were investigated, disregarding other potential benefits of low disease activity on long-term organ damage prevention or comorbidities.

To assess treatment adherence in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients initiated on Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other FDA-approved stimulants and non-stimulant medications.ADHD patients initiated on an ADHD medication (index medication) were selected from a large US administrative claims database. Based on age and previous treatment status, patients were classified into treatment-naïve children and adolescents (6-17 years old), previously treated children and adolescents, treatment-naïve adults (over 18 years old), and previously treated adults. Furthermore, based on their index medication, patients were classified into seven mutually exclusive treatment groups: LDX, atomoxetine (ATX), osmotic release methylphenidate hydrochloride long acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate long acting (MPH LA) and short acting (MPH SA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine short acting (AMPH SA) and long acting (AMPH LA). Treatment adherence (proportion of days covered by the index medication ≥0.8) over a 12-month period was compared across treatment groups using multivariate logistic regression models.In children and adolescents, LDX patients were more likely to be adherent compared to patients in each of the other treatment groups, except in treatment-naïve patients where LDX patients had a similar likelihood (p = 0.6925) and were less likely (p = 0.0004) to be adherent compared to ATX and OROS MPH patients, respectively. In adults, the LDX treatment group was also more likely to be adherent compared to each of the other treatment groups, except compared to AMPH LA, where statistically insignificant differences were observed (previously treated: p = 0.6471, treatment-naïve: p = 0.0733).ADHD severity information was not available in the database. Accordingly, this study did not control for ADHD severity.Overall, LDX-treated patients demonstrated a better treatment adherence compared to patients initiated on other ADHD medications, except for AMPH LA in adult and OROS MPH and ATX in treatment-naïve children and adolescents.

Patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs) may develop dermatologic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that may affect patients' quality-of-life, require medical care, and may lead to substantial costs. This study assessed the economic burden of dermatologic ADRs in colorectal cancer (CRC), head and neck cancer (HNC), and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.Adult patients with ≥1 diagnosis for the study cancer initiated on EGFRIs indicated for CRC, HNC, and NSCLC were selected from a large commercial database (MarketScan Commercial Database [2000-2010]; Thomas Reuters, New York, NY). For each cancer type, patients were classified into two mutually exclusive cohorts: 'ADR' (patients with ≥1 ADR following EGFRI initiation) and 'ADR-free' (patients without any ADR). Patients were observed from the index date up to the end of continuous healthcare plan enrollment or 90 days after EGFRI discontinuation, whichever occurred first. For each cancer group, the proportion of patients and the incidence rate (IR) of experiencing ≥1 dermatologic ADR were reported. Incidence rate ratios for healthcare resource utilization and monthly incremental costs (2010 USD) were estimated using Poisson regression and generalized linear or two-part models, respectively.Overall, the proportion of patients with ≥1 ADR ranged between 20.5-36.4% across cancer groups (IR ranged between 44.2-57.4 per 100 patient-years). After adjusting for confounders, in each cancer group, ADR patients had higher incidence of healthcare resource utilization, generally driven by higher incidence of emergency room visits and incurred incremental total monthly healthcare costs that ranged between $2284-$3210 across cancer groups.There was no clinical measure of cancer staging and ADR severity in the database.Results suggest that patients with CRC, NSCLC, and HNC, who may benefit from EGFRI therapies, may also incur a substantial economic burden that is associated with dermatologic ADRs.

To compare persistence and adherence among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with either multiple- or single- long-acting maintenance inhalers.Patients with ≥2 COPD medical claims and ≥2 prescriptions for a long-acting inhaler within 1 year were classified as single- or multiple-inhaler users based on their treatment regimen (MarketScan database; 2004-2008) and matched on demographics and statistically significant baseline characteristics. Persistence, analyzed via time to treatment discontinuation, and treatment adherence, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC), were compared between the two groups over a 12-month period. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in patients with poorly and well-controlled disease.A total of 23,494 patients were grouped into 11,747 matched pairs. After adjusting for confounding factors, multiple-inhaler users had a significantly higher discontinuation rate [Hazard ratio = 1.40, p 0.0001] compared with single-inhaler users. Multiple-inhaler users were less likely to be adherent than single-inhaler users with an average PDC of 0.51 (SD = 0.272) vs. 0.55 (SD = 0.279), respectively (p 0.0001). These results were consistent for the poorly- and well-controlled disease groups.Multiple long-acting inhaler users demonstrated lower treatment persistence and adherence rates than single long-acting inhaler users. Limitations of the study are related to the retrospective, observational design and use of claims data.