Contemporary economic burden in a real-world heart failure population with Commercial and Medicare supplemental plans

Background Limited real-world data exist on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), including urgent HF visits, which are assumed to be less burdensome than HF hospitalizations (hHFs) Hypothesis This study aimed to quantify the economic burden of HFrEF and HFpEF, via a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study, using IBM(R) linked claims/electronic health records (Commercial and Medicare Supplemental data only). Methods Adult patients, indexed on HF diagnosis (ICD-10-CM: I50.x) from July 2012 through June 2018, with 6-month minimum baseline period and varying follow-up, were classified as HFrEF (I50.2x) or HFpEF (I50.3x) according to last-observed EF-specific diagnosis. HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up. Results About 109 721 HF patients (22% HFrEF, 31% HFpEF, 47% unclassified EF; median 18 months' follow-up) were identified. There were 3.2 all-cause outpatient visits per patient-month (HFrEF, 3.3; HFpEF, 3.6); 69% of patients required inpatient stays (HFrEF, 80%; HFpEF, 78%). Overall, 11% of patients experienced hHFs (HFrEF, 23%; HFpEF, 16%), 9% experienced urgent HF visits (HFrEF, 15%; HFpEF, 12%); 26% were hospitalized less than 30 days after first urgent HF visit versus 11% after first hHF. Mean monthly total direct healthcare cost per patient was $9290 (HFrEF,$11 053; HFpEF, $7482). Conclusions HF-related HCRU is substantial among contemporary real-world HF patients in US Commercial or Medicare supplemental health plans. Patients managed in urgent HF settings were over twice as likely to be hospitalized within 30 days versus those initially hospitalized, suggesting urgent HF visits are important clinical events and quality improvement targets

Health economic impact of moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis in England: a retrospective analysis of linked primary and secondary care data

Objective: Despite the prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) in England, few studies have examined the health economic impact of chronic pain associated with OA. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with OA and matched controls without known OA. Design: Retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study. Setting: Electronic records extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set. Participants: Patients (cases; n=5931) ≥18 years and with existing diagnosis of OA and moderate-to-severe pain associated with their OA, and controls matched on age, sex, comorbidity burden, general practitioner (GP) practice and availability of HES data. Interventions: None. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Total healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs during 0–6, 0–12, 0–24 and 0–36 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes measures included pharmacological management and time to total joint replacement. Results: Patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with OA used significantly more healthcare services versus matched controls, reflected by higher HCRU and significantly higher direct costs. During the first 12 months’ follow-up, cases had significantly more GP consultations, outpatient attendances, emergency department visits and inpatient stays than matched controls (all p20 lines of therapy, respectively. Conclusions: This wide-ranging, longitudinal, observational study of real-world primary and secondary care data demonstrates the impact of moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with OA in patients compared with matched controls. Further studies are required to fully quantify the health economic burden of moderate-to-severe pain associated with OA

Treatment pathways, economic burden and clinical outcomes in new users of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting B2-agonist dual therapy with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a primary care setting in England: a retrospective cohort study

Objective Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) improves lung function and health status and reduces COPD exacerbation risk versus monotherapy. This study described treatment use, healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), healthcare costs and outcomes following initiation of single-device ICS/LABA as initial maintenance therapy (IMT).Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Primary care, England.Data sources Linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets.Participants Patients with COPD and ≥1 single-device ICS/LABA prescription between July 2015 and December 2018 were included.Primary and secondary outcome measures Treatment pathways, COPD-related HCRU and healthcare costs, COPD exacerbations, time to triple therapy, medication adherence (proportion of days covered ≥80%) and indexed treatment time to discontinuation. Data for patients without prior maintenance therapy history (IMT users) and non-triple users were assessed over a 12-month follow-up period.Results Of 13 451 new ICS/LABA users, 5162 were IMT users (budesonide/formoterol, n=1056; beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol, n=2427; other ICS/LABA, n=1679), for whom at 3 and 12 months post-index, 45.6% and 39.4% were still receiving any ICS/LABA. At >6 to ≤12 months, the proportion of IMT users with ≥1 outpatient visit (10.1%) and proportion with ≥1 inpatient stay (12.6%) had increased from those at 3 months (9.0% and 7.4%, respectively). Inpatient stays contributed most to total COPD-related healthcare costs. For non-triple IMT users, at 3 and 12 months post-index, 4.5% and 13.7% had ≥1 moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation. Time to triple therapy initiation and time to discontinuation of index medication ranged from 45.9 to 50.2 months and 2.3 to 2.8 months between treatments. Adherence was low across all time points (21.5–27.6%). Results were similar across indexed therapies.Conclusions In the year following treatment initiation, ICS/LABA adherence was poor and many patients discontinued or switched therapies, suggesting that more consideration and optimisation of treatment is required in England for patients initiating single-device ICS/LABA therapy

Cardiovascular risk profiles: A cross-sectional study evaluating the generalisability of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials REWIND, LEADER and SUSTAIN-6 to the real-world type 2 diabetes population in the UK

Aims: To determine the proportion of UK patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who meet the cardiovascular (CV) or combined CV/core eligibility criteria of the CV outcome trials (CVOTs) of UK-marketed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) showing CV benefit (dulaglutide in REWIND, liraglutide in LEADER and injectable semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6).Materials and Methods: Adults with T2D on/before June 2018 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data (Protocol 19_262). Patient CV and clinical data were evaluated against the CVOTs’ eligibility criteria. Data were analysed descriptively.Results: The study cohort (N=33,118 patients with T2D) had a mean (SD) age of 66.0 (13.3) years and 56.6% were male. Almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the study cohort met the CV criteria for REWIND, versus 43.0% for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportions of the study cohort who met the CVOTs’ criteria of ‘established CV disease’ and ‘CV risk factors only’ for REWIND were 22.4% and 42.1%, respectively, versus 38.7% and 4.3%, respectively, for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportion of patients satisfying both CV and core criteria was 44.4% for REWIND, 13.3% for LEADER and 13.5% for SUSTAIN-6. Study findings remained consistent when restricted to GLP-1 RA users.Conclusions: REWIND captured a trial population more representative of the real-world T2D population in the UK than LEADER or SUSTAIN-6 with regard to both CV and combined CV/core eligibility criteria

Estimating the cost and epidemiology of mild to severe chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis in England: a retrospective analysis of linked primary and secondary care data

Objective Osteoarthritis (OA) affects 10% of adults in the UK. Despite over one-third of people with OA experiencing chronic pain, few studies have examined the population-level impact of chronic pain associated with OA. We compared resource-use and epidemiological outcomes in patients with mild, moderate and severe chronic OA-associated pain and matched controls without known OA.Design Retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study (July 2008 to June 2019).Setting Electronic records extracted from Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).Participants Patients (cases; n=23 016) aged ≥18 years with chronic OA-associated pain. Controls (n=23 016) without OA or chronic pain matched on age, sex, comorbidity burden, general practitioner practice and available HES data.Interventions None.Primary and secondary outcome measures Total healthcare resource use (HCRU), direct healthcare costs in 0–12, 12–24 and 24–36 months postindex. Secondary outcomes included incidence and prevalence of chronic OA-associated pain and pharmacological management.Results HCRU was consistently greater in cases versus controls for all resource categories during preindex and postindex periods. Across follow-up periods, resource use was greatest in patients with severe pain. In the first 12 months postindexing, mean total costs incurred by cases were four times higher versus matched controls (£256 vs £62); costs were approximately twice as high in cases vs controls for months 12–24 (£166 vs £86) and 24–36 (£150 vs £81; all p<0.0001). The incidence of new cases of chronic pain associated with OA was 2.64 per 1000 person-years; the prevalence was 1.4%.Conclusions This study highlights the real-world cost of chronic pain associated with OA in cases versus matched controls. We included patients with mild, moderate and severe pain associated with OA, and showed HCRU in discrete 1-year time frames. The true economic burden of pain associated with OA is likely to be considerably higher when indirect costs are considered

Persons diagnosed with COVID-19 in England in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD): a cohort description

Objective To create case definitions for confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 vaccination status and three separate definitions of high risk of severe COVID-19, as well as to assess whether the implementation of these definitions in a cohort reflected the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 epidemiology in England.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Electronic healthcare records from primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) linked to secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics) data covering 24% of the population in England.Participants 2 271 072 persons aged 1 year and older diagnosed with COVID-19 in CPRD Aurum between 1 August 2020 and 31 January 2022.Main outcome measures Age, sex and regional distribution of COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 vaccine doses received prior to diagnosis were assessed separately for the cohorts of cases identified in primary care and those hospitalised for COVID-19 (primary diagnosis code of ICD-10 U07.1 ‘COVID-19’). Smoking status, body mass index and Charlson Comorbidity Index were compared for the two cohorts, as well as for three separate definitions of high risk of severe disease used in the UK (National Health Service Highest Risk, PANORAMIC trial eligibility, UK Health Security Agency Clinical Risk prioritisation for vaccination).Results Compared with national estimates, CPRD case estimates under-represented older adults in both the primary care (age 65–84: 6% in CPRD vs 9% nationally) and hospitalised (31% vs 40%) cohorts, and over-represented people living in regions with the highest median wealth areas of England (20% primary care and 20% hospital admitted cases in South East vs 15% nationally). The majority of non-hospitalised cases and all hospitalised cases had not completed primary series vaccination. In primary care, persons meeting high-risk definitions were older, more often smokers, overweight or obese, and had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score.Conclusions CPRD primary care data are a robust real-world data source and can be used for some COVID-19 research questions, however, limitations of the data availability should be carefully considered. Included in this publication are supplemental files for a total of over 28 000 codes to define each of three definitions of high risk of severe disease

Healthcare resource utilisation and costs of hospitalisation and primary care among adults with COVID-19 in England: a population-based cohort study

Objectives To quantify direct costs and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) associated with acute COVID-19 in adults in England.Design Population-based retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum primary care electronic medical records linked to Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care administrative data.Setting Patients registered to primary care practices in England.Population 1 706 368 adults with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test from August 2020 to January 2022 were included; 13 105 within the hospitalised cohort indexed between August 2020 and March 2021, and 1 693 263 within the primary care cohort indexed between August 2020 and January 2022. Patients with a COVID-19-related hospitalisation within 84 days of a positive test were included in the hospitalised cohort.Main outcome measures Primary and secondary care HCRU and associated costs ≤4 weeks following positive COVID-19 test, stratified by age group, risk of severe COVID-19 and immunocompromised status.Results Among the hospitalised cohort, average length of stay, including critical care stays, was longer in older adults. Median healthcare cost per hospitalisation was higher in those aged 75–84 (£8942) and ≥85 years (£8835) than in those aged <50 years (£7703). While few (6.0%) patients in critical care required mechanical ventilation, its use was higher in older adults (50–74 years: 8.3%; <50 years: 4.3%). HCRU and associated costs were often greater in those at higher risk of severe COVID-19 than in the overall cohort, although minimal differences in HCRU were found across the three different high-risk definitions. Among the primary care cohort, general practitioner or nurse consultations were more frequent among older adults and the immunocompromised.Conclusions COVID-19-related hospitalisations in older adults, particularly critical care stays, were the primary drivers of high COVID-19 resource use in England. These findings may inform health policy decisions and resource allocation in the prevention and management of COVID-19