Dataset Information

A Retrospective Study to Examine Healthcare Costs Related to Cardiovascular Events in Individuals with Hyperlipidemia.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Few studies have demonstrated the cost burden of cardiovascular events (CVEs) among patients with hyperlipidemia. The primary objective of this study was to determine the mean costs associated with CVEs among patients with hyperlipidemia by follow-up time period. Secondary objectives of this study included characterizing costs by CVE type and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used longitudinal claims to calculate payer costs according to CHD risk level and type of CVE, during several follow-up periods (acute and short-term, comprising year 1; plus years 2 and 3).

Results

There were 193,385 patients with hyperlipidemia with a CVE. Costs in the acute (30-day) period were highest ($22,404) driven by inpatient care (77%). Costs remained high ($15,133 in year 3) with ambulatory care (from 14% in acute to 37% in year 3) and pharmaceutical costs (from 2% in acute to 24% in year 3) representing a greater proportion. After second and third CVEs, acute costs were lower than for the first CVE. But in the post-acute periods, costs were higher after second and third CVEs than after first CVEs. Acute costs varied considerably by type of CVE ($9149 for transient ischemic attack to $54,251 for coronary artery bypass graft; P < 0.001), but post-acute costs were more similar across types. Costs differed by baseline CHD risk for all follow-up periods (P < 0.001), but less than by CVE type. As expected, patients without CVEs had significantly lower costs.

Conclusion

Among patients with hyperlipidemia, the economic burden of CVEs is substantial up to 3 years after a CVE. Costs remain high after subsequent CVEs and actually increase for non-inpatient utilization.

Funding

Amgen Inc.

SUBMITTER: Henk HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4662727 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used across multiple cancer types and stages and little is known about real-world outcomes. This study sought to determine healthcare utilization, costs, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and all-cause mortality of single-agent versus combination ICI in the USA.Materials and methodsThis is a retrospective study conducted with 2016-2018 data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, consisting of commercial and Medicare-insured adult patients with a cancer diagnosis using ICI in the USA. Outcomes were healthcare utilization, costs, and irAEs (FDA-recognized and others) up to 1-year post-index between patients using ICI monotherapy (mono, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor) and combination therapy (combo, PD-1/PD-L1 with CTLA-4 inhibitors).ResultsIn total, 9084 patients received monotherapy and 904 patients received combo therapy. Mean age 65 years for mono and 58 years for combo. Overall, the combo arm had higher rates of FDA-recognized irAEs (67.4% vs. 45.9%), especially endocrinopathies (27.7% vs 14.7%) and dermatitis (25.9% vs. 12.4%). All-cause mortality over 1-year follow-up was similar, 30.7% in mono vs 30.8% in combo arms. The combo group had higher rates of all-cause inpatient hospitalizations (55.4% mono vs 65.6% combo) and emergency department (ED) visits (33.7% mono vs 41.4% combo). IrAE-related hospitalizations were higher in combo (55.2% vs 42.1%). IrAE-related ED visits were 15.7% mono vs 22.7% combo. This increased toxicity and health care utilization was reflected in significant differences in healthcare costs. Stark differences were seen in all-cause medical costs as well as costs related to inpatient and ED utilization and costs attributed to irAEs.ConclusionsHigher rates of irAEs, healthcare utilization, and costs occur with combination immunotherapy. As further indications are approved for combination ICI, our study highlights the real-world tradeoffs involved with combination therapy regarding burdens of toxicity and increased healthcare utilization.