Improved persistence and adherence to diuretic fixed-dose combination therapy compared to diuretic monotherapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diuretics are recommended as initial treatment for hypertension. Several studies have suggested suboptimal persistence and adherence to thiazide diuretic monotherapy; this study compared patient persistence and adherence with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) monotherapy to fixed-dose combinations containing HCTZ.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with at least one prescription claim during 2001 to 2003 for either HCTZ or one of the following fixed-dose combinations: angiotensin-receptor blockers/HCTZ (ARB/HCTZ), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/HCTZ (ACEI/HCTZ), or beta blockers/HCTZ (BB/HCTZ) were identified. Patients were required to be continuously benefit-eligible six months pre- and one year post-index date, and to have no prescription claims for any antihypertensive therapy six months prior to the index date. Patients were followed for one year to assess persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR), adherence (MPR >80%), and proportion of days covered (PDC) with initial antihypertensive therapy. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for persistence, adherence and PDC, adjusted for age, gender, business segment, RxRisk disease categories, average co-pay and concurrent cardiovascular-related medication utilization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study cohort consisted of 48,212 patients; 72.5% used HCTZ, 13.2% ACEI/HCTZ, 9.3% ARB/HCTZ, and 5.0% BB/HCTZ. Mean age was 53.7 years and 66.5% were female. A significantly lower proportion of patients using HCTZ (29.9%) remained persistent with therapy at 12 months compared with ARB/HCTZ (52.6%; OR = 0.37, CI = 0.36, 0.38), ACEI/HCTZ (51.4%; OR = 0.38, CI = 0.37, 0.39), and BB/HCTZ (51.9%; OR = 0.38, 0.37, 0.40). Similarly, PDC was lower for HCTZ patients (32.5%) as compared to ARB/HCTZ (53.7%; OR = 0.39, CI = 0.37, 0.40), ACEI/HCTZ (50.9%; OR = 0.42, CI = 0.40, 0.43), and BB/HCTZ (51.3%; OR = 0.44, CI 0.42, 0.45). MPR was also significantly lower for HCTZ patients as compared to those using fixed-dose combination therapies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Initiating HCTZ fixed-dose combination therapy with an ACEI, ARB, or BB was associated with greater persistence and adherence as compared to HCTZ monotherapy. Further research is needed to determine the relationship between improved persistence and adherence with blood pressure control.</p

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism based on the Hokusai-VTE study.

ObjectiveVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with almost 300,000 deaths per year in the United States. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) offer an alternative to warfarin-based therapy without monitoring requirements and with fewer drug and food interactions. Edoxaban, a direct Xa inhibitor, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), based upon results of the Hokusai-VTE Phase 3 trial. The trial demonstrated that edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was non-inferior in reducing the risk of VTE recurrence and caused significantly less major and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding compared to warfarin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of adults with VTE.MethodsA cost-effectiveness model was developed using patient-level data from the Hokusai-VTE trial, clinical event costs from real-world databases, and drug acquisition costs for warfarin of $0.36 and edoxaban of$9.24 per tablet.ResultsFrom a U.S. health-care delivery system perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 22,057 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that edoxaban had an ICER <50,000 per QALY gained relative to warfarin in 67% of model simulations. The result was robust to variation in key model parameters including the cost and disutility of warfarin monitoring.ConclusionDespite its higher drug acquisition cost, edoxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for the treatment of VTE

Estimation of Annual Health Care Costs for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes health care resource utilization (HCRU) studies tend to focus on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) or pool patients with T2D and type 1 diabetes (T1D). There is a paucity of recent data on the cost of treating patients with T1D in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To (a) estimate the per-patient per-year (PPPY) HCRU and costs, from a payer perspective, associated with treating U.S. adults with T1D and (b) compare these with the HCRU and costs for patients with T2D. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims data from the Optum Clinformatics database between January 2015 and December 2017. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of T1D were propensity score-matched to adults with T2D. Overall and nondiabetes-related HCRU and costs were assessed for T1D and T2D and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Propensity scores were used to match 10,103 patient pairs from T1D and T2D cohorts (mean ages 54.4 and 56.9 years, respectively). In the T1D cohort, inpatient, emergency department (ED), outpatient, and prescription claims occurred in 14.0%, 17.3%, 85.5%, and 100% of patients, respectively, resulting in a mean total cost of U.S. $18,817 PPPY (diabetes-related =$11,002; nondiabetes-related = $7,816). The T1D cohort had significantly higher mean total costs than the T2D cohort ($18,817 vs. 14,148 PPPY; P < 0.001). When extrapolating these findings to a commercial health plan with 1 million covered lives, the estimated total direct medical costs of T1D would be 103.4 million. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the total annual cost of managing an adult with T1D is significantly higher than that of an adult with T2D. Nondiabetes costs accounted for 40% of the total per-patient cost, similar to patients with T2D, confirming that as patients with T1D live longer lives, they may also be at greater risk for cardiometabolic complications. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi U.S. and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals as part of a business partnership in a diabetes program at the time this study was conducted. Joish and Davies are employees and stockholders of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Zhou, Preblick, and Paranjape are employees and stockholders of Sanofi. Lin was a postdoctoral fellow at Sanofi through Rutgers University during this project. Deshpande provided consulting services through Communication Symmetry. Verma is an employee of Evidera, which was contracted by Sanofi for work on this study. Pettus is a consultant for Diasome, Insulet, Lexicon, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Senseonics

A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies

Aim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by$242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time

Supplementary tables: Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation

These are peer-reviewed supplementary data for the article 'Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplementary table 1: Risk of occurrence of LTCO in direct comparison of individual drugs scenarioSupplementary table 2: LTCO risk of treatments (non-temporal scenarios)Supplementary table 3: LTCO risk of treatments (temporal scenarios)Aim: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with ablation both as individual treatments and as combination therapy without/with considering the order of treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the economic impact of AADs (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and as a group) versus ablation across three scenarios: direct comparisons of individual treatments, non-temporal combinations, and temporal combinations. The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidance as per current model objectives. Results are reported as costs per patient per year (PPPY). The impact of individual parameters was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA). Results: In direct comparisons, ablation had the highest annualmedication/procedure cost ($29,432), followed by dofetilide ($7661), dronedarone ($6451), sotalol ($4552), propafenone ($3044), flecainide ($2563), and amiodarone ($2538). lecainide had the highest costs for long-term clinical outcomes ($22,964), followed by dofetilide ($17,462), sotalol ($15,030), amiodarone ($12,450), dronedarone ($10,424), propafenone ($7678) and ablation ($9948). In the non-temporal scenario, total costs incurred for AADs (group) + ablation ($17,278) were lower compared with ablation alone ($39,380). In the temporal scenario, AADs (group) before ablation resulted in PPPY cost savings of ($22,858) compared with AADs (group) after ablation ($19,958). Key factors in OWSA were ablation costs, the proportion of patients having reablation, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Conclusion: Utilization of AADs as individual treatment or in combination with</p

Supplementary data: A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies

Supplementary Table 1: Annual Rate control costs associated with AADs and Annual ablation cost associated with AADsSupplementary Table 2: Risk of LTCOs for AADsSupplementary Table 3: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone vs. Rate Control + AblationSupplementary Table 4: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone vs. AblationSupplementary Table 5: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone + Rate Control vs. AADs + Rate ControlSupplementary Table 6: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone vs. Rate ControlSupplementary Table 7: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone + Ablation vs. other AADs + AblationSupplementary Table 8: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone + Rate Control + Ablation vs. AADs + Rate Control + AblationSupplementary Table 9: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone vs. Rate Control vs. AblationSupplementary Table 10: Event Risks for Temporal ScenariosAim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by$242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion: Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time.</p

Differences between patients with type 1 diabetes with optimal and suboptimal glycaemic control: A real-world study of more than 30 000 patients in a US electronic health record database.

AimsTo use electronic health record data from real-world clinical practice to assess demographics, clinical characteristics and disease burden of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States.Materials and methodsRetrospective observational study of adults with T1D for ≥24 months at their first visit with a T1D diagnosis code ("index date") between July 2014 and June 2016 in the Optum Humedica database. Demographic characteristics, acute complications (severe hypoglycaemia [SH], diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]), microvascular complications, cardiovascular (CV) events and health care resource utilization during the 12 months before the index date ("baseline period") were compared between patients with optimal versus suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] &lt;7.0% vs. ≥7.0% [53 mmol/mol]) at the closest measurement to the index date.ResultsOf 31 430 adults with T1D, 79.9% had suboptimal glycaemic control (mean HbA1c 8.8% [73 mmol/mol]). These patients were more likely to be younger, African American, uninsured or on Medicaid, obese, smokers, have uncontrolled hypertension and have depression. Despite worse glycaemic control and increased CV risk factors of uncontrolled hypertension, obesity and smoking, rates of coronary heart disease and stroke were not higher in these patients. Patients with suboptimal glycaemic control also experienced more diabetes complications (including SH, DKA and microvascular disease) and utilized more emergency care, with more emergency department visits and inpatient stays.ConclusionThis real-world study of &gt;30 000 adults with T1D showed that individuals with suboptimal versus optimal glycaemic control differed significantly in terms of health care coverage, comorbidities, diabetes-related complications, health care utilization and CV risk factors. However, suboptimal control was not associated with increased risk of CV outcomes