Health care resource utilization and direct costs incurred over 24 months after initiating galcanezumab or standard-of-care preventive migraine treatments in the United States.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Oralee J Varnado, Michelle Vu, Erin Buysman, Gilwan Kim, Gayle Allenback, Margaret Hoyt, Helen Trenz, Feng Cao, Lars Viktrup
{"title":"Health care resource utilization and direct costs incurred over 24 months after initiating galcanezumab or standard-of-care preventive migraine treatments in the United States.","authors":"Oralee J Varnado, Michelle Vu, Erin Buysman, Gilwan Kim, Gayle Allenback, Margaret Hoyt, Helen Trenz, Feng Cao, Lars Viktrup","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs incurred over 12 months following initiation of galcanezumab (GMB) or standard-of-care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments have been evaluated. However, a gap in knowledge exists in understanding longer-term HCRU and direct costs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs in patients with migraine initiating GMB or SOC preventive migraine treatments over a 24-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data. The study included adults diagnosed with migraine, with at least 1 claim for GMB or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 2018 to March 2020), with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first GMB or SOC claim). Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used to balance cohorts. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs for GMB vs SOC cohorts were reported as mean (SD) per patient per year (PPPY) over a 24-month follow-up and compared using a Z-test. Costs were inflated to 2022 US$.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PS matching, 2,307 patient pairs (mean age: 44.4 years; female sex: 87.3%) were identified. Compared with the SOC cohort, the GMB cohort had lower mean (SD) PPPY all-cause office visits (17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7]; <i>P</i> = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; <i>P</i> = 0.002) at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between cohorts in other all-cause and migraine-related events assessed including outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. The mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort compared with the SOC cohort for all-cause office visits ($4,321 [7,518] vs $5,033 [7,211]; <i>P</i> < 0.001) at follow-up. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY all-cause total costs ($24,704 [30,705] vs $21,902 [28,213]; <i>P</i> = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; <i>P</i> < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. Mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort for migraine-related office visits ($806 [1,690] vs $1,353 [2,805]; <i>P</i> < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY migraine-related total costs ($8,248 [11,486] vs $5,047 [9,749]; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; <i>P</i> < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in all-cause and migraine-related costs for outpatient visits, ED visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although total costs were greater for GMB vs SOC following initiation, changes in a few categories of all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs were lower for GMB over a 24-month follow-up. Additional analysis evaluating indirect health care costs may offer insights into further cost savings incurred with preventive migraine treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":"30 8","pages":"792-804"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293767/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.792","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs incurred over 12 months following initiation of galcanezumab (GMB) or standard-of-care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments have been evaluated. However, a gap in knowledge exists in understanding longer-term HCRU and direct costs.

Objective: To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs in patients with migraine initiating GMB or SOC preventive migraine treatments over a 24-month follow-up.

Methods: This retrospective study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data. The study included adults diagnosed with migraine, with at least 1 claim for GMB or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 2018 to March 2020), with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first GMB or SOC claim). Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used to balance cohorts. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs for GMB vs SOC cohorts were reported as mean (SD) per patient per year (PPPY) over a 24-month follow-up and compared using a Z-test. Costs were inflated to 2022 US$.

Results: After PS matching, 2,307 patient pairs (mean age: 44.4 years; female sex: 87.3%) were identified. Compared with the SOC cohort, the GMB cohort had lower mean (SD) PPPY all-cause office visits (17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7]; P = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; P = 0.002) at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between cohorts in other all-cause and migraine-related events assessed including outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. The mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort compared with the SOC cohort for all-cause office visits ($4,321 [7,518] vs $5,033 [7,211]; P < 0.001) at follow-up. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY all-cause total costs ($24,704 [30,705] vs $21,902 [28,213]; P = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. Mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort for migraine-related office visits ($806 [1,690] vs $1,353 [2,805]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY migraine-related total costs ($8,248 [11,486] vs $5,047 [9,749]; P < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in all-cause and migraine-related costs for outpatient visits, ED visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits.

Conclusions: Although total costs were greater for GMB vs SOC following initiation, changes in a few categories of all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs were lower for GMB over a 24-month follow-up. Additional analysis evaluating indirect health care costs may offer insights into further cost savings incurred with preventive migraine treatment.

美国偏头痛患者在接受加康珠单抗或标准预防性治疗后24个月内的医疗资源利用率和直接成本。
背景:已对加康珠单抗(GMB)或标准护理(SOC)预防性偏头痛治疗开始后 12 个月内的医疗资源利用率(HCRU)和直接费用进行了评估。然而,在了解长期HCRU和直接成本方面还存在知识空白:比较开始接受 GMB 或 SOC 预防性偏头痛治疗的偏头痛患者在 24 个月随访期间的全因和偏头痛相关 HCRU 和直接费用:这项回顾性研究使用了 Optum 去标识化的 Market Clarity 数据。研究对象包括确诊为偏头痛的成人,至少有一次 GMB 或 SOC 预防性偏头痛治疗索赔(2018 年 9 月至 2020 年 3 月),在指数日期(首次 GMB 或 SOC 索赔日期)之前 12 个月和之后 24 个月(随访)连续注册。采用倾向得分(PS)匹配(1:1)来平衡队列。在 24 个月的随访期间,GMB 和 SOC 组群的全因和偏头痛相关 HCRU 和直接费用以每位患者每年的平均值(标度)(PPPY)进行报告,并使用 Z 检验进行比较。成本已膨胀至 2022 年的美元:经过 PS 匹配后,共确定了 2,307 对患者(平均年龄:44.4 岁;女性:87.3%)。与SOC队列相比,GMB队列在随访时的PPPY全因就诊次数平均值(标清)较低(17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7];P = 0.023),偏头痛相关就诊次数平均值(标清)较低(2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7];P = 0.002)。在其他全因和偏头痛相关事件的评估中,包括门诊就诊、急诊室就诊、住院和其他医疗就诊,各组间未观察到明显差异。在随访时,GMB队列与SOC队列相比,全因门诊的平均(标清)PPPY费用较低(4321美元 [7,518] vs 5033美元 [7,211];P < 0.001)。然而,与 SOC 群体相比,GMB 群体的 PPPY 全因总费用(24,704 美元 [30,705] vs 21,902 美元 [28,213];P = 0.001)和药房费用(9,507 美元 [12,659] vs 5,623 美元 [12,605];P < 0.001)的平均值(标清)更高。与普通人群队列相比,普通人群队列中偏头痛相关门诊的平均(标清)PPPY 费用较低(806 [1,690] 美元 vs 1,353 [2,805] 美元;P < 0.001)。然而,与SOC队列相比,GMB队列的PPPY偏头痛相关总费用(8248 [11,486] 美元 vs 5047 [9,749]美元;P < 0.001)和偏头痛相关药费(5394 [3,986] 美元 vs 1761 [4,133]美元;P < 0.001)的平均值(标度)更高。在门诊就诊、急诊室就诊、住院和其他医疗就诊的全因费用和偏头痛相关费用方面,不同组群之间没有明显差异:结论:虽然GMB与SOC相比,开始治疗后的总费用更高,但在24个月的随访中,GMB在几类全因和偏头痛相关的HCRU和直接费用方面的变化更低。对间接医疗成本的其他评估分析可能有助于深入了解预防性偏头痛治疗可节省的更多成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信