Suppr超能文献

在美国开始使用加卡奈珠单抗或标准护理预防性偏头痛治疗后24个月内的医疗保健资源利用情况及直接成本。

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.

作者信息

Varnado Oralee J, Vu Michelle, Buysman Erin, Kim Gilwan, Allenback Gayle, Hoyt Margaret, Trenz Helen, Cao Feng, Viktrup Lars

机构信息

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN.

Optum Life Sciences, Eden Prairie, MN.

出版信息

J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2024 Aug;30(8):792-804. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.792.

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]; = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; = 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]; < 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]; = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; < 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]; < 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]; < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; < 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.

摘要

背景

已对加卡尼单抗(GMB)或标准护理(SOC)预防性偏头痛治疗开始后12个月内的医疗保健资源利用(HCRU)和直接成本进行了评估。然而,在理解长期HCRU和直接成本方面存在知识空白。

目的

比较在24个月随访期内开始使用GMB或SOC预防性偏头痛治疗的偏头痛患者的全因和偏头痛相关HCRU及直接成本。

方法

这项回顾性研究使用了Optum去识别化的市场清晰度数据。该研究纳入了被诊断为偏头痛的成年人,至少有1次GMB或SOC预防性偏头痛治疗的索赔记录(2018年9月至2020年3月),在索引日期(首次GMB或SOC索赔日期)之前连续入组12个月,之后连续入组24个月(随访期)。采用倾向评分(PS)匹配(1:1)来平衡队列。GMB组与SOC组的全因和偏头痛相关HCRU及直接成本以每位患者每年(PPPY)的均值(标准差)报告,随访期为24个月,并使用Z检验进行比较。成本 inflated至2022年美元。

结果

PS匹配后,识别出2307对患者(平均年龄:44.4岁;女性:87.3%)。与SOC组相比,GMB组在随访时全因门诊就诊的PPPY均值(标准差)较低(17.9 [17.7] 对19.1 [18.7];P = 0.023),偏头痛相关门诊就诊的PPPY均值(标准差)也较低(2.6 [3.3] 对3.0 [4.7];P = 0.002)。在评估的其他全因和偏头痛相关事件(包括门诊就诊、急诊科就诊、住院和其他医疗就诊)中,两组之间未观察到显著差异。随访时,GMB组全因门诊就诊的PPPY均值(标准差)成本低于SOC组(4321美元 [7518美元] 对5033美元 [7211美元];P < 0.001)。然而,与SOC组相比,GMB组全因总成本的PPPY均值(标准差)较高(24704美元 [30705美元] 对21902美元 [28213美元];P = 0.001),药房成本也较高(9507美元 [12659美元] 对5623美元 [12605美元];P < 0.001)。与SOC组相比,GMB组偏头痛相关门诊就诊的PPPY均值(标准差)成本较低(806美元 [1690美元] 对1353美元 [2805美元];P < 0.001)。然而,与SOC组相比,GMB组偏头痛相关总成本的PPPY均值(标准差)较高(8248美元 [11486美元] 对5047美元 [9749美元];P < 0.001),偏头痛相关药房成本也较高(5394美元 [3986美元] 对1761美元 [4133美元];P < 0.001)。在门诊就诊、急诊科就诊、住院和其他医疗就诊的全因和偏头痛相关成本方面,两组之间没有显著差异。

结论

尽管开始治疗后GMB的总成本高于SOC,但在24个月的随访中,GMB在全因和偏头痛相关HCRU及直接成本的几个类别上的变化较小。评估间接医疗成本的进一步分析可能有助于深入了解预防性偏头痛治疗带来的进一步成本节约。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验