Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34754205›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021

Comparison of Healthcare Resource Utilization Between Patients Who Engaged or Did Not Engage With a Prescription Digital Therapeutic for Opioid Use Disorder.

Fulton F Velez, Sam Colman, Laura Kauffman, Charles Ruetsch, Kathryn Anastassopoulos, Yuri A Maricich

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fulton F VelezPear Therapeutics, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9054-5933
Sam ColmanCovance Market Access, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Laura KauffmanCovance Market Access, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Charles RuetschHealth Analytics, Columbia, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0879-9289
Kathryn AnastassopoulosCovance Market Access, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2868-2467
Yuri A MaricichPear Therapeutics, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
Covance (United States) · USPear Therapeutics (United States) · USTruven Health Analytics (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) (reSET-O

objectiveTo compare real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among patients who engaged with reSET-O and buprenorphine compared to similar patients in recovery treated with buprenorphine who did not fill their reSET-O script or engage with the PDT beyond week one.

methodsA retrospective analysis of facility and clinical service claims data was conducted in adults with PDT initiation and between 12 weeks and 9 months of continuous enrollment in a health plan after initiation. Patients who filled their prescription and engaged with the therapeutic were compared to patients who filled the prescription but did not engage beyond week one (NE), and patients who did not fill the prescription (NR) (the latter two groups combined into one group hereafter referred to as "non-engagers"). Comparisons were analyzed using a repeated-measures negative binomial model of encounters/procedures, adjusted for number of days in each period. Associated cost trends assessed using current Medicare reimbursement rates.

resultsA total of 444 patients redeemed a prescription and engaged with the PDT (mean age 37.5 years, 63.1% female, 84% Medicaid), and 64 patients did not engage with the PDT (mean age 39.5 years, 32.8% female, 73.4% Medicaid). Total cost of hospital facility encounters was $2693 for engaged patients vs $6130 for non-engaged patients. Engaged patients had somewhat higher rates of certain clinician services. Total facility and clinician services costs for engaged vs non-engaged patients were $8733 vs $11,441, for a net cost savings over 9 months of $2708 per patient who engaged with reSET-O.

conclusionPatients who engaged with an OUD-specific PDT had a net cost reduction for inpatient and outpatient services of $2708 per patient over 9 months compared to patients who did not engage with the PDT, despite similar levels of buprenorphine adherence.

Indexed as

community reinforcement approachcontingency managementhealthcare resource utilizationopioid use disorderOUDPDTprescription digital therapeuticreSET-O

Identifiers

PMID34754205
PMCPMC8568698
OpenAlexW3209911690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.