Search

Objective: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is present in up to 17% of patients in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between AF patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin in SNFs.Methods: Using de-identified claims from Optum Clinformatics Extended Data Mart (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2017), this retrospective cohort study indexed AF patients with first SNF admission during which rivaroxaban or warfarin was initiated within 3 days of admission. To adjust for selection bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression and generalized linear models were used to compare HRU and costs.Results: 519 rivaroxaban and 1129 warfarin patients met inclusion criteria. After IPTW, the cohorts were well balanced for baseline characteristics. The average length of index SNF stay was 32.07 and 37.44 days for rivaroxaban and warfarin patients, respectively. During SNF stay, rivaroxaban patients had 27% lower odds of hospitalization (p < .0001), 2.7 fewer international normalized ratio (INR) tests per-patient-per-month (PPPM; p < .001), and 2.3 fewer pathology/laboratory encounters PPPM (p < .0001) than warfarin patients. All-cause healthcare costs were $2638 lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (p < .0001) during the index SNF stay, with lower medical costs (p < .0001) but higher pharmacy costs (p < .0001). Total all-cause healthcare costs 100 days post-index SNF were $8746 lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (p < .0001).Conclusions: In the SNF setting, AF patients treated with rivaroxaban had 5-day shorter length of stay, lower HRU, and lower all-cause total and medical costs compared to warfarin, despite higher treatment costs. These findings may help inform clinical decision-making to reduce economic burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is increasing. Rivaroxaban is commonly used in this setting as an alternative to warfarin, based on comparable or increased efficacy in preventing stroke and a similar or lower risk of major bleeding. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between NVAF patients receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin in SNFs. Methods: This retrospective study examined de-identified claims from Optum® Clinformatics® Extended Data Mart (1 January 2013–31 December 2017). Eligible patients had an AF diagnosis, were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin during an SNF stay, and had one or more such prescriptions filled in the 6 months preceding the stay. Patients were excluded if they received another oral anticoagulant or had evidence of valvular heart disease, mitral stenosis, or organ/tissue transplant. HCRU, mean number of events, and all-cause healthcare costs during the index SNF stay were reported. Results were also reported on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis. Exploratory analyses at different time periods were also conducted. Results: Overall, 4423 rivaroxaban patients and 22,796 warfarin patients were identified prior to inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. Index SNF stay was significantly shorter among rivaroxaban-treated patients (35.8 ± 35.8 days) versus warfarin (40.1 ± 46.3 days; p < 0.0001). During the SNF stay, overall HCRU was lower for the rivaroxaban cohort versus the warfarin cohort. All-cause total costs were significantly reduced for rivaroxaban ($6450 ± $10,379) versus warfarin ($7640 ± $16,556; p < 0.0001), and similar results were observed when calculated on a PPPM basis. During the 1-year post-index period, PPPM all-cause total costs were significantly lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin ($4135 vs. $4561; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In this SNF setting, HCRU and costs were lower among patients with NVAF who were experienced users of rivaroxaban compared with those who were experienced users of warfarin. These findings may help inform clinical decision making to reduce the economic burden of NVAF among older adults in SNFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess characteristics and healthcare costs associated with pharmacologically treated episodes of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with continuous health plan enrollment for ≥12 months before and after a newly observed MDD diagnosis (observed between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015) were included in this retrospective claims-based analysis. A pharmacologically treated episode was defined as beginning at the date of the first MDD diagnosis and ending when a gap of 180 days occurred between MDD diagnoses, or when a gap of 180 days occurred following the end of the antidepressant (AD)/antipsychotic (AP) drug supply. When such a gap occurred, the episode end date was determined to be either the date of the last MDD diagnosis or date of the end of AD/AP drug supply, whichever was later. An episode was considered TRD if ≥3 AD regimens occurred. Episode duration, medication regimens used, and relapse hospitalization were reported for TRD and non-TRD MDD episodes. Total all-cause and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) healthcare costs (in 2016 $) were estimated.Results: Of 48,440 patients identified with ≥1 AD-treated MDD episode, the mean (SD) age was 39 (15) years, and 62% were female. Of all episodes, 7% were TRD, with a mean duration of 571 (285) days vs. 200 (198) days for non-TRD MDD episodes. Mean total all-cause costs were $19,626 ($44,160) for TRD and $7440 ($25,150) for non-TRD MDD episodes.Conclusions: Results show TRD episodes are longer and costlier than non-TRD MDD episodes, and that higher costs are driven by episode duration. Longer episodes imply protracted suffering for patients with TRD and increased burden on caregivers. Effective intervention to shorten TRD episodes may lessen disease burden and reduce costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared utilization patterns of high-cost services and medications for patients receiving care from Accountable Care Organization (ACO)-participating physicians and those receiving care from non-ACO physicians during the initial phases of ACO development in a commercially insured environment. Patients ≥18 years (≥40 years for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]) with prevalent rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, type 2 diabetes, COPD, or chronic low back pain between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2014 were identified in the HealthCore Integrated Research DatabaseSM. Patients were assigned to the ACO cohort if their primary treating physician was contracted to the health plan through an ACO agreement. Each clinical condition was stratified for severity of illness. Cohort utilization patterns were compared for the 12-month period following the index encounter. The primary outcome measures show that there was no statistically significant utilization difference between the ACO and non-ACO cohorts for 90% of the 82 comparisons made. It is expected that some measures will achieve significant difference simply because of having this many comparisons, but no clear pattern was identified. This study did not observe statistically significant differences in utilization of high-cost services and medications between ACO and non-ACO cohorts with limited experience in the ACO model. Future analyses with longer study durations, at later stages of ACO development, tracking a more granular level of physician organizational structure, and with designs that integrate clinical and administrative data are essential to better understand the impact of payment innovation strategies using an ACO structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]