BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) imposes a substantial clinical and economic burden on the U.S. health care system. Despite national guidelines that recommend oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention, the literature consistently reports its underuse in AF patients with moderate to high stroke risk.

BackgroundAsthma is a common chronic condition with an economic burden of almost $56 billion annually in the US. Biologic markers like blood eosinophils, that help predict the risk of exacerbation could help guide more optimal treatment plans and reduce cost. The purpose of this study was to determine whether healthcare resource use and expenditures vary by eosinophil level among patients with asthma.MethodsPatients with a diagnosis of asthma defined by ICD-9-CM code 493.xx between January 2004 and July 2011 were extracted from EMRClaims + database (eMAX Health, White Plains NY). Patients were classified as mild, moderate, or severe by medication use following diagnosis, based on recommendations of National Institutes of Health Expert Panel Report 3. Patients were classified as those with elevated eosinophils (≥400 cells/μL) and normal eosinophil level (<400 cells/μL). Patients were followed for resource use, defined as hospitalizations, ER visits and outpatient visit and associated costs were calculated to assess whether an economic difference exists between eosinophil groups. Non-parametric tests were used to compare resource use and associated cost between elevated and normal eosinophil groups. Multivariate modeling was performed to assess the contribution of eosinophil level on the likelihood of study outcomes among patients with severe asthma.ResultsAmong the 2,164 patients meeting eligibility criteria, 1,144 had severity designations. Of these, 179(16 %) of patients had severe asthma of which 20 % (n = 35) had elevated eosinophils. Seventeen percent of patients with elevated eosinophils were admitted to the hospital during the follow-up period, significantly greater than patients with normal eosinophil levels (12 %; p = 0.011). Overall, compared to patients with normal eosinophil levels (n = 1734), patients with elevated eosinophil levels (n = 430) had significantly greater mean annual hospital admissions (0.51 vs. 0.21/year, p = 0.006) and hospital costs (2,536 vs. $1,091, p = 0.011). Logistic regressions showed that elevated eosinophil level was associated with 5.14 times increased odds of all cause admissions (95 % CI:1.76–14.99, p = 0.003) and 4.07 times increased odds of asthma related admissions (95 % CI: 1.26–13.12, p = 0.019).ConclusionEosinophil elevation was associated with greater healthcare resource use in patients with asthma.

This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dotiwala and Casciano report consulting and writing fees from Teva Pharmaceuticals for work on this study. Sun is an employee and stockholder of Teva Pharmaceuticals. Li reports consulting fees from eMAX Health. All authors contributed to study design. Dotiwala took the lead in data collection, along with the other authors, and data interpretation was performed primarily by Krishnan, Sun, and Li, along with Casciano and Dotiwala. The manuscript was written by Casciano, Dotiwala, and Li, along with Sun and Krishnan, and revised by Casciano, Dotiwala, Sun, and Li, with assistance from Krishnan.

Background Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is approved for migraine prevention in adults. Real-world data on the effectiveness of fremanezumab are limited. This retrospective, observational cohort study assessed patient-reported migraine symptoms, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and direct medical costs before and after fremanezumab treatment initiation. Methods Data were extracted from September 2018 through June 2020 from the Midwest component of EMRClaims+®, an integrated health services database containing > 20 million medical records from national commercial insurance claims, Medicare claims, and regional electronic medical records. Patients included in the cohort analysis were aged ≥ 18 years and were administered fremanezumab, with enrollment or treatment history for ≥ 6 months prior (pre-index) to initiating fremanezumab (index date) and ≥ 1 month after the index date (post-index), and without pregnancy or pregnancy-related encounters during the study period. Patient-reported headache frequency, migraine pain intensity (MPI), composite migraine symptoms, and HCRU were assessed pre-index and ≥ 1 month after fremanezumab initiation. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare means of migraine symptoms and outcomes and HCRU before and after fremanezumab initiation. Results Overall, 172 patients were eligible for analysis. Of patients who self-reported (n = 129), 83.7% reported improvement in headache frequency or symptoms after fremanezumab treatment. Specifically, headache frequency decreased by 63% after fremanezumab initiation: mean (standard deviation) headache frequency was 22.24 (9.29) days per month pre-index versus 8.24 (7.42) days per month post-index (P < 0.0001). Mean MPI also decreased by 18% after fremanezumab initiation: MPI was 5.47 (3.19) pre-index versus 4.51 (3.34) post-index (P = 0.014). Mean emergency room (ER) visits per month decreased from 0.72 to 0.54 (P = 0.003), and mean outpatient visits per month decreased from 1.04 to 0.81 (P < 0.001). Mean hospitalizations per month decreased, but the results did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.095). Hospitalization and ER costs decreased, while outpatient costs increased, from pre-index to post-index, but differences were not statistically significant (P ≥ 0.232). Conclusions Significant reductions in headache frequency, MPI, and HCRU were observed after fremanezumab initiation in patients with migraine in a US real-world setting.

BackgroundAsthma represents a significant clinical and economic burden to the US healthcare system. Along with other clinical manifestations of the disease, elevated sputum and blood eosinophil levels are observed in patients experiencing asthma exacerbations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between blood eosinophil levels and asthma severity defined using Expert Panel Report 3 guidelines.MethodsPatients with asthma diagnosis between 2004 and 2011 were extracted from the EMRClaims+ database (eMAX Health, White Plains, NY) containing electronic medical records linked to insurance claims for over 675,000 patients. The date of first asthma diagnosis was defined as the ‘index date’. Patients were required to have at least 1 peripheral eosinophil test (elevated defined as ≥ 400 cells/μL) in the 12 month ‘assessment’ period following the index date. We classified patients as those with mild asthma and moderate-to-severe asthma based on the pattern of medication use, as recommended by the 2007 National Institutes of Health Expert Panel Report. Logistic regression models were used to determine if patients with moderate-to-severe asthma had increased likelihood of an elevated peripheral eosinophil count, after accounting for demographics and comorbidities.ResultsAmong 1,144 patients with an asthma diagnosis, 60 % were classified as having moderate-to-severe asthma. Twenty four percent of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and 19 % of patients with mild asthma had an elevated peripheral eosinophil count (p = 0.053). Logistic regression showed that moderate-to-severe asthma was associated with 38 % increased odds of elevated eosinophil level (OR 1.38, 95 % CI: 1.02 to 1.86, p = 0.04).ConclusionPatients with moderate-severe asthma are significantly more likely to have an elevated peripheral eosinophil count than patients with mild asthma.