Retrospective administrative claims database studies provide real-world evidence about treatment patterns, healthcare resource use, and costs for patients and are increasingly used to inform policy-making, drug formulary, and regulatory decisions. However, there is no standard methodology to identify patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) from administrative claims data. Given the number of approved drugs now available for patients with PAH, the cost of PAH treatments, and the significant healthcare resource use associated with the care of patients with PAH, there is a considerable need to develop an evidence-based and systematic approach to accurately identify these patients in claims databases. A panel of pulmonary hypertension clinical experts and researchers experienced in retrospective claims database studies convened to review relevant literature and recommend best practices for developing algorithms to identify patients with PAH in administrative claims databases specific to a particular research hypothesis.
BackgroundThe study examined the prevalence of early treatment revisions after glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥9.0% (75 mmol/mol) and estimated the impact of early treatment revisions on glycemic control, diabetic complications, and costs.Research design and methodsA retrospective cohort study of administrative claims data of plan members with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥9.0% (75 mmol/mol) was completed. Treatment revision was identified as treatment addition or switch. Glycemic control was measured as HbA1c during 6–12 months following the first qualifying HbA1c ≥9.0% (75 mmol/mol) laboratory result. Complications severity (via Diabetes Complication Severity Index (DCSI)) and costs were measured after 12, 24, and 36 months. Unadjusted comparisons and multivariable models were used to examine the relationship between early treatment revision (within 90 days of HbA1c) and outcomes after controlling for potentially confounding factors measured during a 12-month baseline period.Results8463 participants were included with a mean baseline HbA1c of 10.2% (75 mmol/mol). Early treatment revision was associated with greater reduction in HbA1c at 6–12 months (−2.10% vs −1.87%; p<0.001). No significant relationship was observed between early treatment revision and DCSI at 12, 24, or 36 months (p=0.931, p=0.332, and p=0.418). Total costs, medical costs, and pharmacy costs at 12, 24, or 36 months were greater for the early treatment revision group compared with the delayed treatment revision group (all p<0.05).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, treatment revision within 90 days of finding an HbA1c ≥9.0% is associated with a greater level of near-term glycemic control and higher cost. The impact on end points such as diabetic complications may not be realized over relatively short time frames.
BackgroundThe objective of this study was to examine patient characteristics and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in the 36 months prior to a confirmatory diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared to a matched cohort without dementia during the same time interval.MethodsPatients newly diagnosed with AD (with ≥2 claims) were identified between January 1, 2013 to September 31, 2015, and the date of the second claim for AD was defined as the index date. Patients were enrolled for at least 36 months prior to index date. The AD cohort was matched to a cohort with no AD or dementia codes (1:3) on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and enrollment duration prior to the index date. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize patient characteristics, HCRU, and healthcare costs prior to the confirmatory AD diagnosis. The classification and regression tree analysis and logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with the AD diagnosis.ResultsThe AD cohort (N = 16,494) had significantly higher comorbidity indices and greater odds of comorbid mental and behavioral diagnoses, including mild cognitive impairment, mood and anxiety disorders, behavioral disturbances, and cerebrovascular disease, heart disease, urinary tract infections, and pneumonia than the matched non-AD or dementia cohort (N = 49,482). During the six-month period before the confirmatory AD diagnosis, AD medication use and diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, Parkinson’s disease, or mood disorder were the strongest predictors of a subsequent confirmatory diagnosis of AD. Greater HCRU and healthcare costs were observed for the AD cohort primarily during the six-month period before the confirmatory AD diagnosis.ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrated a higher comorbidity burden and higher costs for patients prior to a diagnosis of AD in comparison to the matched cohort. Several comorbidities were associated with a subsequent diagnosis of AD.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0920-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Funding for this research was provided by Eli Lilly and Company. Comprehensive Health Insights, owned by Humana, completed this study. Peng, Fu, Ascher-Svanum, Ali, and Rodriguez are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Saundankar and Louder are employed by Comprehensive Health Insights, and Slabaugh and Young are employed by Humana. Study concept and design were contributed by Peng, Ascher-Svanum, and Young. Saundankar and Louder took the lead in data collection, while Saundankar, Peng, Fu, and Louder interpreted the data. The manuscript was written by Saundankar, Peng, Fu, and Louder and revised by Saundankar, Rodriguez, Ali, and Louder.
QUESTIONS ASKED: Are there financial ramifications associated with the paradigm shift of cancer care delivery away from community-based clinics (CCs) and toward hospital-based oncology clinics (HCs)? Furthermore, are any cost differences also accompanied by care quality differentials as measured by hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) visits?ReCAPs (Research Contributions Abbreviated for Print) provide a structured, one-page summary of each paper highlighting the main findings and significance of the work. The full version of the article is available online at jop.ascopubs.org. AbstractPurpose Access to high-quality cancer care remains a challenge for many patients. One such barrier is the increasing cost of treatment. With recent shifts in cancer care delivery from community-based to hospital-based clinics, we examined whether this shift could result in increased costs for patients with three common tumor types. MethodsCost data for 6,675 patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancer were extracted from the IMS LifeLink database and analyzed as cost per patient per month (PPPM). Patients treated within a community setting were matched (2 to 1) with those treated at a hospital clinic on the basis of cancer type, chemotherapy regimen, receipt of radiation therapy, presence of metastatic disease, sex, prior surgery, and geographic region. Approximately 84% of patients were younger than 65 years of age. ResultsMean total PPPM cost was significantly lower for patients treated in a community-versus hospital-based clinic ($12,548 [standard deviation {SD},$10,507] v $20,060 [SD, $16,555]; P , .001). The PPPM chemotherapy cost was also significantly lower in the community setting ($4,933 [SD,$4,983] v $8,443 [SD,$10,391]; P , .001). The lower cost observed in community practice was irrespective of chemotherapy regimen and tumor type. ConclusionWe observed significantly increased costs of care for our patient population treated at hospital-based clinics versus those treated at community-based clinics, largely driven by the increased cost of chemotherapy and provider visits in hospital-based clinics. If the site of cancer care delivery continues to shift toward hospital-based clinics, the increased health care spending for payers and patients should be better elucidated and addressed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.