sábado, 13 de octubre de 2018

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among patients with hereditary angioedema in the United States | Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Full Text

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among patients with hereditary angioedema in the United States | Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Full Text



Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among patients with hereditary angioedema in the United States

  • Email author,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  •  and
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases201813:180
  • Received: 2 March 2018
  • Accepted: 25 September 2018
  • Published: 

Abstract

Background

Real-world data on usage and associated outcomes with hereditary angioedema (HAE)-specific medications introduced to the United States (US) market since 2009 are very limited. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate real-world treatment patterns of HAE-specific medications in the US and to assess their impact on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This analysis used IMS PharMetrics PlusTM database records (2006–2014) of patients with HAE, ≥1 insurance claim for an HAE-specific medication, and continuous insurance enrollment for ≥3 months following the first HAE prescription claim.

Results

Of 631 total patients, 434 (68.8%) reported C1-INH(IV) use; 396 (62.8%) reported using ecallantide and/or icatibant. There were 306 episodes of prophylactic use of C1-INH(IV) (defined by continuous refills averaging ≥1500 IU/week for ≥13 weeks) in 155 patients; use of ≥1 on-demand rescue medication was implicated during 53% (163/306) of those episodes. Sixty-eight (20.2%) of 336 C1-INH(IV) users eligible for the HCRU analysis were hospitalized at least once, and 191 (56.8%) visited the emergency department (ED). Eighteen patients (5.4%) had a central venous access device (CVAD); of these, 5 (27.7%) required hospitalization and 14 (77.7%) had an ED visit. The adjusted relative risk of hospitalization and/or ED visits for patients with a CVAD was 2.6 (95% CI: 0.17, 39.23) compared to C1-INH(IV) users without a CVAD.

Conclusions

Despite widespread availability of modern HAE medications in the US, we identified a subset of patients requiring long-term prophylaxis who continue to be burdened by frequent rescue medication usage and/or complications related to the use of CVADs for intravenous HAE medication.

Keywords

  • Central venous access device
  • Claims data
  • Healthcare resource utilization
  • Hereditary angioedema
  • Intravenous C1-inhibitor
  • Real-world
  • Treatment patterns

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario