Excess costs associated with patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in a US privately insured population.
ABSTRACT Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a rare and potentially fatal disease. Little is known about the economic burden associated with CTEPH patients in the US.
The objective of this study was to estimate excess direct costs associated with privately insured patients with CTEPH in the US.
From a privately insured claims database (>8 million beneficiaries, 2002-7), 289 CTEPH patients were identified using the criteria: two or more claims for pulmonary hypertension (PH), International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM) code 416.0 or 416.8; one or more claim for pulmonary embolism (ICD-9-CM: 415.1, V12.51; ICD-9 procedure: 38.7; Current Procedural Terminology [CPT]-4 code: 36010, 37620, 75825, 75940; Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System [HCPCS] code: C1880) within 12 months prior or 1 month after the initial PH claim (index date); one or more claim for right heart catheterization (RHC) within 6 months prior to any PH claim or one or more claim for echocardiogram within 6 months prior to a specialist-diagnosed PH claim; aged 18-64 years. Patients with CTEPH were matched demographically to controls without PH. Patients were followed as long as continuously eligible; mean follow-up in CTEPH patients was 21.5 months. Chi-squared tests were used to compare baseline co-morbidities. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare direct (medical and pharmaceutical) patient-month costs to insurers.
The average age for CTEPH patients was 52.2 years, and 57.1% were women. Compared with controls, CTEPH patients had significantly higher baseline rates of co-morbidities (e.g. essential hypertension, congestive heart failure and chronic pulmonary disease) and a higher mean Charlson Co-morbidity Index score. Mean direct patient-month costs (year 2007 values) were $US4782 for CTEPH patients and $US511 for controls (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis restricting the sample to patients diagnosed following RHC yielded a 15% increase in excess costs relative to the original sample. Regarding cost drivers, inpatient services accounted for 54%, outpatient and other services for 33% and prescription drugs for 11% of total direct healthcare costs per patient-month in CTEPH patients. Circulatory-/respiratory-related patient-month costs were $US2496 among CTEPH patients and $US128 among controls (p < 0.0001).
CTEPH patients had substantially higher costs and co-morbidity than matched controls, with circulatory-/respiratory-related costs accounting for 55% of excess costs. The high burden of illness suggests opportunities for savings from improved management.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Healthcare reform is upon the United States (US) healthcare system. Prioritisation of preventative efforts will guide necessary transitions within the US healthcare system. While annual deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) costs have recently been defined at the US national level, annual pulmonary embolism (PE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) costs have not yet been defined. A decision tree and cost model were developed to estimate US health care costs for total PE, total hospital-acquired PE, and total hospital-acquired "preventable" PE. The previously published DVT cost model was modified, updated and combined with the PE cost model to elucidate the same three categories of costs for VTE. Direct and indirect costs were also delineated. For VTE in the base model, annual cost ranges in 2011 US dollars for total, hospital- acquired, and hospital-acquired "preventable" costs and were $13.5-$27.2, $9.0-$18.2, and $4.5-$14.2 billion, respectively. The first sensitivity analysis, with higher incidence rates and costs, demonstrated annual US total, hospital-acquired, and hospital-acquired "preventable" VTE costs ranging from $32.1-$69.3, $23.7-$51.5, and $11.9-$39.3 billion, respectively. The second sensitivity analysis with long-term attack rates (LTAR) for recurrent events and post-thrombotic syndrome and chronic pulmonary thromboembolic hypertension demonstrated annual US total, hospital-acquired, and hospital-acquired "preventable" VTE costs ranging from $15.4-$34.4, $10.3-$25.4, and $5.1-$19.1 billion, respectively. PE costs comprised a majority of the VTE costs. Prioritisation of effective VTE preventative strategies will reduce significant costs, morbidity and mortality within the US healthcare system. The cost models may be utilised to estimate other countries' costs or VTE-specific disease states.Thrombosis and Haemostasis 06/2012; 108(2):291-302. DOI:10.1160/TH12-03-0162 · 5.76 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It was the objective of this study to quantify the risk of complications and the incremental health care costs associated with recurrent VTE events. Health care insurance claims from the Ingenix IMPACT database from 01/2004-09/2008 were analysed. Subjects aged ≥18 years on the date of first recurrent VTE diagnosis with ≥12 months of baseline observation prior to the index recurrent VTE were matched 1:1 with no-recurrent VTE patients based on propensity scores. The risk of developing post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and other disease-related diagnoses (thrombocytopenia, superficial venous thrombosis, venous ulcer, pulmonary hypertension, stasis dermatitis, and venous insufficiency) was compared between the recurrent and no-recurrent VTE groups for up to one year. All-cause and disease-related costs per patient per year (PPPY) were calculated. The recurrent VTE and no-recurrent VTE cohorts (8,001 subjects in each group) were matched with respect to age, gender, and comorbidities. The risk ratios (RRs) indicated that the risk of developing post-event complications was significantly higher for the recurrent VTE group compared to the no-recurrent VTE group (RR [95% CI]: PTS: 2.7 [2.4 - 2.9], p-value <0.01). Patients with recurrent VTE had significantly higher average PPPY all-cause costs compared to no-recurrent VTE patients ($86,744 versus $37,525, cost difference: $49,219 [€33,617]; 95% CI= 46,253-51,989). Corresponding disease-related health care costs PPPY were also significantly higher for the recurrent VTE group ($11,120 vs $1,262, cost difference: $9,858 [€6,733]; 95% CI= $9,081-$10,476). In conclusion, in this large matched-cohort study, recurrent VTE patients had significantly higher risk of complications and health care costs compared to no-recurrent VTE patients.Thrombosis and Haemostasis 10/2013; 110(6). DOI:10.1160/TH13-05-0425 · 5.76 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To review the pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of macitentan. PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the terms macitentan and ACT-064992. Phase II and III trials were reviewed in our primary analysis; data from phase I trials and other studies were reported as applicable. Macitentan is a dual endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) approved for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Current treatment options for PAH include 2 other ERAs, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, prostanoids, and calcium channel blockers. Recently published guidelines do not assert a preference for individual agents. Two trials evaluated the safety and efficacy of macitentan. The phase II study was a 12-month placebo-controlled trial involving patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; the primary end point was change in forced vital capacity. No significant treatment effect was observed. The phase III study was a placebo-controlled trial involving patients with PAH. The primary end point was time to first occurrence of a composite of outcomes, including all-cause death and PAH worsening. Over a median period of 115 weeks, macitentan 10 mg and 3 mg daily significantly reduced morbidity and mortality. Commonly reported adverse effects included worsening of PAH, peripheral edema, upper-respiratory-tract infection, and anemia. Macitentan represents the latest addition to the PAH armamentarium. Compared with other ERAs, clinical advantages may include fewer contraindications, use in hepatic impairment, and once-daily administration. However, further comparative studies are necessary to ascertain its place in therapy.Annals of Pharmacotherapy 01/2014; 48(4). DOI:10.1177/1060028013518900 · 2.92 Impact Factor