Healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with HIV-1 who switched first-line antiretroviral therapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 1945-1953
Author(s):  
Jianbin Mao ◽  
Michael P. Johnson ◽  
Jeffrey T. McPheeters ◽  
Girish Prajapati ◽  
Andrew P. Beyer
2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S435-S436
Author(s):  
Jianbin Mao ◽  
Micheal Johnson ◽  
Jeffrey Mcpheeters ◽  
Girish Prajapati ◽  
Andrew Beyer

Abstract Background Initial antiretroviral therapy (ART) is modified for non-virologic failure reasons in many patients, and the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with these switches in the real world is not well understood. Methods Administrative claims data from the Optum Research and Impact National Benchmark Databases were utilized. Adult patients (≥18 years) with HIV-1 diagnosis code, and claim for an anchor agent of the protease inhibitor (PI) or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) class in first-line ART between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015 were identified (see Figure 1 for addl. criteria). Patients with a claim for an anchor agent (PI or NNRTI) different from that in first-line ART were defined as switchers, with index date as date of first claim for new anchor agent. Switchers were matched to patients who did not switch (non-switchers) at 1:3 ratio using propensity score matching on patient and first-line ART characteristics. For non-switchers, date following corresponding duration of first-line ART in matched switcher was assigned as index date. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause HRU and costs (US$) during switch period (±15 days of index date) were compared descriptively. Results 11,302 patients met study criteria. After matching, switcher (1,204) and non-switcher (3,612) groups were comparable on mean age (41.9 vs. 41.7 years), percent male (85.8% vs. 82.6%), percent commercial enrollee (96.0% vs. 95.8%), mean Quan-Charlson comorbidity index score (both 0.4), and mean ART pill burden (both 2.2) with standard difference less than absolute value of 10%. During switch period, switchers had higher mean PPPM ambulatory visits (2.30 vs. 1.26), emergency room visits (0.12 vs. 0.06), inpatient stays (0.04 vs. 0.01), and pharmacy fills (4.52 vs. 3.01) than non-switchers (all P < 0.001). Switchers also incurred greater mean PPPM costs during switch than non-switchers, with an additional $2,261/month total cost, and $1,031/month pharmacy cost (Figure 2). Conclusion The study gives a more complete view of the burden of switching initial ART with pharmacy costs driving this burden. Assuming some patients will switch regardless of the regimen selected, less expensive initial ART could reduce this burden further. Disclosures M. Johnson, Merk & Co: Research Contractor, research funded by Merk; J. Mcpheeters, Merck & Co.: Research Contractor, Sarary from Optum; G. Prajapati, Merck & Co., Inc.: Employee, Salary; A. Beyer, Merck & Co., Inc: Employee and Shareholder, Salary


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3549-3549
Author(s):  
Debra Irwin ◽  
Lu Zhang ◽  
Kathleen Wilson ◽  
Gerard Hoehn ◽  
Erika Szabo ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine real-world differences in healthcare resource utilization of indolent non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (iNHL) patients treated with first-line ibrutinib monotherapy (IM) or first-line bendamustine + rituximab (BR) combination therapy using U.S. administrative claims data. METHODS: The MarketScan® Research Databases were used to identify patients aged 18 years or older with commercial or Medicare supplemental insurance plans based on their first prescription (index date) of either IM or BR therapy between 02/01/2014 and 08/30/2017. Patients were required to be diagnosed with iNHL and be treatment naïve, as well as be continuously enrolled (CE) for 6 months prior to and at least 30 days following the index date. All-cause and iNHL-related healthcare resource utilization (e.g., inpatient admission (IP) and emergency room (ER) visits) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period from the index date among the subset of patients with 12 months of continuous enrollment and reported per-patient per-month (PPPM). Statistical differences in the distribution of IP and ER visits between the IM versus BR therapy groups were estimated using chi-squared test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 1,544 iNHL patients were identified, with 207 patients in the IM cohort and 1,337 patients in the BR cohort. The IM cohort was significantly older (mean = 68.3 years; SD = 11.8) then the BR cohort (mean age = 62.1 years; SD = 11.1). The proportion of females was significantly (p<.05) lower in the IM cohort (36%) relative to the BR cohort (49%). The two cohorts did not differ in comorbidity as assessed by National Cancer Institute Comorbidity Index score (IM=0.7 vs. BR=0.8, p=0.40). The results of the comparisons between the two groups with 12 months of follow-up (IM = 110; BR = 745) are provided in Table 1. For all-cause healthcare utilization, the proportion of IM patients experiencing at least one IP admission was significantly higher than the BR cohort as were the PPPM number of admissions. The proportion of patients with at least one ER visit was similar in the IM and BR cohorts. However, the average PPPM number of ER visits was significantly higher in the IM cohort relative to the BR cohort. A similar pattern was found for the iNHL-related healthcare utilization variables with one exception. The proportion of patients with at least one iNHL-related ER visit was significantly higher in the IM relative to the BR cohort. Conclusions: The current study examined differences in healthcare utilization among iNHL-patients treated in a front-line setting with either ibrutinib or BR combination therapy. Results indicated that not only did more ibrutinib patients experience an IP admission and ER visits, including both all-cause and iNHL-related, but they also experienced more repeat admissions and ER visits. These real-world findings highlight the importance of considering the healthcare resource utilization of iNHL patients which may be associated with their first-line therapy. Disclosures Irwin: Teva: Consultancy. Zhang:Teva: Consultancy. Wilson:Teva: Consultancy. Hoehn:Teva: Employment. Szabo:Teva: Employment. Tang:Teva: Employment.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3548-3548
Author(s):  
Debra Irwin ◽  
Lu Zhang ◽  
Kathleen Wilson ◽  
Gerard Hoehn ◽  
Erika Szabo ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the real-world differences in healthcare resource utilization in chronic lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL) patients treated with either first-line ibrutinib monotherapy (IM) or first-line bendamustine + rituximab (BR) therapy using U.S. administrative claims data. METHODS: The MarketScan® Research Databases were used to identify patients aged 18 years or older with commercial or Medicare supplemental insurance plans based on their first prescription (index date) of either IM or BR therapy between 02/01/2014 and 08/30/2017. Patients were required to be diagnosed with CLL and be treatment naïve, as well as be continuously enrolled (CE) for 6 months prior to and at least 30 days following the index date. All-cause and CLL-related healthcare resource utilization (e.g., inpatient admission (IP) and emergency room (ER) visits) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period from the index date among the subset of patients with 12 months of continuous enrollment and were reported per-patient per-month (PPPM). Statistical differences in the distribution of IP and ER visits between the IM versus BR therapy groups were estimated using chi-squared test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 1,886 CLL patients were identified, with 1,157 patients in the IM cohort and 729 patients in the BR cohort. The IM cohort was significantly older (mean = 69.3 years; SD = 11.6) then the BR cohort (mean age = 66.4 years; SD = 9.8). There was a similar proportion of females (IM = 36%; BR = 32%), and no significant difference in the National Cancer Institute Comorbidity Index score was observed between the two cohorts (IM=0.9 vs BR=0.8, p=0.34). The results of the comparisons between the two groups with 12 months of follow-up (IM = 589; BR = 436) are provided in Table 1. For all-cause healthcare utilization, the proportion of patients experiencing at least one IP admission and the PPPM number of admissions was significantly higher in the IM cohort compared to the BR cohort. The proportion of patients with at least one ER visit was higher in the IM than in the BR cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, the PPPM number of ER visits was significantly higher in the IM cohort. A similar pattern was found for the CLL-related healthcare utilization variables with two exceptions. First, the average length of stay (ALOS) per CLL-related IP admission was significantly longer for the IM than BR cohort; whereas, ALOS per all-cause IP admission was longer for the IM cohort, but the difference was not significantly different. Second, while patients in the IM cohort experienced more CLL-related ER visits, they were not significantly higher in the IM cohort than in the BR cohort. Conclusions: The current study examined differences in healthcare utilization during a 12 month period among CLL-patients initially treated in a front-line setting with either ibrutinib or BR combination therapy. Results indicated that not only did more ibrutinib patients experience an IP admission and ER visits, both all-cause and CLL-related, but they also experienced more repeat admissions and ER visits. These real-world findings highlight the importance of considering the healthcare resource utilization of CLL patients which may be associated with their first-line therapy. Disclosures Irwin: Teva: Consultancy. Zhang:Teva: Consultancy. Wilson:Teva: Consultancy. Hoehn:Teva: Employment. Szabo:Teva: Employment. Tang:Teva: Employment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document