Treatment Patterns and Associated Health Care Costs Before and After Treatment Initiation Among Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Patients in the United States.

backgroundDespite multiple treatment options, the prognosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) remains poor. PAH patients experience a high economic burden due to comorbidities, hospitalizations, and medication costs. Although combination therapy has been shown to reduce hospitalizations, the relationship between treatment, health care utilization, and costs remains unclear.

objectiveTo provide a characterization of health care utilization and costs in real-world settings by comparing periods before and after initiating PAH-specific treatment.

methodsThis retrospective study identified PAH patients in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases between 2010 and 2014 who initiated treatment with endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE-5Is), or soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators. The index date was the date of the first PAH pharmacy claim. We included patients with ≥ 2 medical claims with diagnoses for PAH (ICD-9-CM: 416.0, 416.8) or PAH-related conditions and continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits for the 6 months before and after the index date. Treatment patterns were assessed at the drug class level (ERAs, PDE-5Is, sGC stimulators, and prostacyclins) from outpatient pharmacy claims during the 6-month post-index period. All-cause and PAH-related utilization and costs were measured. McNemar's and paired t-tests were used to compare patients' health care resource utilization and costs in the 6-month pre- and posttreatment periods.

resultsA total of 3,908 patients met the selection criteria. The study sample was 63% female with a mean age of 63 ± 15 years. Only 5% of patients began initial combination therapy for PAH, defined as claims for ≥ 2 medication classes within the first 30 days of treatment. Treatment interruption (≥ 30-day gap in days supply) of any PAH-specific medication was observed in 38% of patients. Compared with the 6-month pre-index period, the proportion of patients in the 6-month post-index period with any inpatient admission decreased, 42% versus 30% (P < 0.001). In addition, PAH-related inpatient admissions decreased in the 6-month post-index period from 7% to 3% (P < 0.001). After treatment initiation, patients' nonpharmacy medical costs decreased from $48,200 (SD = $117,686) to $33,962 (SD = $90,294; P < 0.001), mainly attributable to reduced inpatient costs. However, total average medical costs including pharmacy costs remained comparable after treatment initiation (pre-index period = $51,455 vs. post-index period = $53,923; P = 0.213).

conclusionsThis study found that while patients' PAH-related pharmacy costs increased after treatment initiation, the increase was offset by reduced inpatient utilization; therefore, total health care costs remained constant. While the majority of patients in this study were treated with monotherapy, the recently completed AMBITION study indicated that initial combination therapy with ambrisentan plus tadalafil reduced PAH-related hospitalizations compared with initial monotherapy with either of these agents. Future cost analyses of patients treated with combination therapy will be required to determine the economic effect of initial combination therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored and funded by Gilead Sciences. Ozbay is an employee of Gilead Sciences. At the time that this project and manuscript were developed, Lazarus was an employee of Gilead Sciences and may own stock/stock options. Riehle, Montejano, and Lenhart are employees of Truven Health Analytics, an IBM company, which received funding from Gilead Sciences to conduct this study. Burger and White do research with, and are paid consultants for, Gilead Sciences; they do not own equity and received no personal compensation for the work here. Burger also reports consultancy and advisory board work for Actelion Pharmaceuticals and grants from Gilead Sciences, Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, and United Therapeutics.