IntroductionAdherence to diabetes medication has been linked to improved glycemic levels and lower costs, but previous research on adherence has typically involved oral antidiabetic medication or insulin. This study examines how adherence and persistence to once-daily liraglutide impact glycemic control and economic outcomes in a real-world population of adult type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from July 2009 through September 2013. Patients aged ≥18 years with T2D treated with liraglutide were identified (index date = first liraglutide prescription). Adherence was based on the proportion of days covered (PDC); with PDC ≥0.80 classified as adherent. Non-persistent patients were those with a gap in therapy of >90 days. Lab results for glycated hemoglobin (A1C) were used to identify whether patients achieved target levels of <7.0% and ≤ 6.5%, or experienced a reduction of ≥1.0% in A1C from pre-index (baseline) to post-index (follow-up). Logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of achieving the A1C goals, adjusted for baseline characteristics. Diabetes-related medical, pharmacy, and total costs were modeled and estimated for the adherence and persistence cohorts.ResultsA total of 1321 patients were identified. The mean PDC was 0.59 and 34% of patients were classified as adherent, while 60% were persistent over 12 months of follow-up. Adherent and persistent patients were more likely to achieve each of the A1C goals than their non-adherent and non-persistent counterparts after adjusting for patient characteristics. Adherence and persistence were associated with higher adjusted diabetes-related pharmacy and total healthcare costs during follow-up; whereas persistent patients had significantly lower diabetes-related medical costs than non-persistent patients.ConclusionsAdherence and persistence to liraglutide are associated with improved A1C outcomes. Persistent patients showed significantly lower medical costs versus those discontinuing liraglutide. Total healthcare costs were higher for adherent and persistent cohorts driven by higher pharmacy costs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0199-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Of the oral agents approved for treating PAH at the time of this study, sildenafil was most commonly prescribed as index therapy and was also associated with the lowest costs, largely due to significantly lower pharmacy costs. This study is characterized by limitations inherent to claims database analyses, such as the potential for coding errors and lack of information on whether a drug was taken as prescribed. Furthermore, PAH severity (WHO functional class) was not assessed.

These results suggest that persistence and adherence with insulin may be improved for patients initiating basal insulin therapy with Levemir FlexPen versus NPH vial.

CRPC is a costly disease, with ambulatory visits and inpatient care accounting for a substantial proportion of the economic burden. Limitations related to the use of retrospective claims data should be considered when interpreting these results.

Patients had an HbA1c reduction of 0.97% in the 12 months following the first canagliflozin fill. Highly adherent patients achieved a greater reduction in HbA1c at the end of the follow-up period and were more likely to reach HbA1c goals. Highly adherent patients also had reductions in the use of most oral AHAs, while LHA patients saw a small increase in insulin use.

In insulin-naive patients with T2DM, initiation of insulin glargine using the disposable pen rather than the vial and syringe is associated with higher persistence, better A1C control, and lower rates of hypoglycemia. The higher study drug costs associated with pen use do not increase total all-cause or diabetes-related healthcare costs. This may help treatment selection for patients with T2DM in a managed care setting.

No abstract

Background Outcomes data among patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction treated with sacubitril/valsartan ( SAC / VAL ) are largely limited to clinical trial results. We compared hospitalization and healthcare costs among real‐world patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction treated with SAC / VAL versus angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin‐receptor blocker ( ACEI / ARB ). Methods and Results Using retrospective administrative claims data, stable patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction treated with SAC / VAL or ACEI / ARB from October 2015 to June 2016 were identified. Postindex hospitalization and healthcare costs were assessed in propensity‐matched cohorts using robust variance estimation. Time to first hospitalization was modeled using unadjusted Kaplan–Meier estimates and multivariable models. Postindex all‐cause healthcare costs were modeled using an adjusted multivariable model. Among 279 patients per matched cohort, postindex hospitalization risk was lower for SAC / VAL compared with ACEI / ARB using Kaplan–Meier estimation and unadjusted Cox models. For HF hospitalization, the hazard ratio (95% CI) was 0.56 (0.33–0.94; P =0.030). Adjusted results were similar to unadjusted. Mean ( SD ) monthly healthcare costs were lower for SAC / VAL versus ACEI / ARB for all categories except pharmacy, with hospital costs being particularly disparate between cohorts: for HF hospitalization, $248 ($1588) for SAC / VAL versus $1122 ($7290) for ACEI / ARB . The adjusted risk of incurring increased all‐cause postindex costs was lower for SAC / VAL versus ACEI / ARB (cost ratio [95% CI] 0.74 [0.59–0.94]; P =0.013). Conclusions In clinical practice, patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction treated with SAC / VAL were less likely to be hospitalized than matched patients treated with ACEI / ARB . Despite higher pharmacy costs, SAC / VAL –treated patients incurred lower monthly medical and total healthcare costs. ...