Abstract Background: The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines recommend maintaining lipid levels within particular targets to reduce the risk of coronary heart ...disease (CHD) events. Objective: The objective of this simulation study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of following guideline-recommended care compared with current practice or usual care for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and mixed dyslipidemia (ie, high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol LDL-C and triglyceride TG levels). Methods: A simulation model using a US health care payer perspective was designed to predict changes in lipid levels (LDL-C, TG, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol) and long-term CHD risk. Data about patients with DM and uncontrolled TG and/or LDL-C were taken from an electronic medical records database to develop the description of current care (eg, statin, fibrate, or no medication) and cholesterol levels. Patients with uncontrolled lipid levels who were not following guideline recommendations were assumed to be receiving combination treatment (ie, coadministration of statin and fibrate) or monotherapy for the uncontrolled lipids under guideline care. Results from a previous study were used to project incremental benefits of combination treatment compared with monotherapy. CHD events were predicted based on risk equations. A 20-year model of direct costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was created. Results: Among patients switched to guideline therapy, the model predicted 72% achieved 2 lipid targets and 44% achieved 3 lipid targets in 1 year. Over 20 years, in a modeled sample of 1000 patients, 176 myocardial infarction and angina events would be avoided by following guideline care. Total present value of costs for drug treatment and medical care for CHD events would be $33,626 per patient for guideline treatment versus $25,264 per patient for current care. The discounted QALY gain would be 0.18 per patient for an incremental cost per QALY of $50,315. Conclusions: The results of this model simulation suggest that for patients with DM and mixed dyslipi-demia, following treatment guidelines rather than current practice (including combination therapy rather than monotherapy) would result in more patients achieving lipid targets, fewer CHD events, and more QALYs gained at a reasonable cost (less than $109,000) per QALY.
In the United States, osteoporosis affects approximately 10 million people, of whom 80% are women, and it contributes a significant clinical burden to the community. Poor adherence to osteoporosis ...medications adds to the overall burden of illness.
To examine the association of osteoporosis medication adherence and the risk of a subsequent fracture among Medicare-enrolled women with a previous fragility fracture.
This study was a retrospective observational analysis of U.S. administrative claims data among female Medicare beneficiaries who had a nontrauma closed fragility fracture between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011. Patients were required to have continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment 12 months pre- and postfracture date. In addition, patients were required to have an osteoporosis medication prescription for a bisphosphonate (alendronate, risedronate, pamidronate, etidronate, zoledronate, and tiludronate), calcitonin, denosumab, raloxifene, or teriparatide during the follow-up period. Adherence was calculated using cumulative medication possession ratio (MPR) from the treatment initiation date in 30-day increments. MPR was stratified into high adherence (MPR ≥ 80%), moderate adherence (50% ≤ MPR > 80%), and low adherence (MPR < 50%). Outcomes included first subsequent fracture after treatment initiation; patients were censored at treatment discontinuation, or end of the 12-month period posttreatment initiation. Covariates included demographics, comorbidities, osteoporosis medications, medications associated with falls, and health care utilization. Cox regression was used to model subsequent fractures with time-dependent cumulative MPR.
Of the 1,292,248 Medicare enrollees who had a fracture in 2011, a total of 103,852 (8.0%) women aged ≥ 65 years with a fragility fracture were identified. Overall, 27,736 (26.7%) patients were treated with osteoporosis medication within 12 months of the fragility fracture (mean time to treatment initiation was 85.0 ± 84.6 days). Over half of the patients were highly adherent (MPR ≥ 80%) to osteoporosis medications during the follow-up (n = 14,112; 50.9%). Almost a third of the patients had low adherence (MPR < 50%; n = 9,022, 32.5%), followed by patients with moderate adherence (50% ≤ MPR > 80%; n = 4,602, 16.6%). After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, patients with low and moderate adherence to osteoporosis medications were 33% (hazard ratio HR = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.17-1.50, P < 0.001) and 19% (HR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.02-1.38, P = 0.026) more likely to have a subsequent fracture, respectively, compared with patients with high adherence. Low adherence patients had a 32% and 34% increased risk for a hip/pelvis/femur fracture (HR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.09-1.59, P = 0.005) and a clinical vertebral fracture (HR = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.09-1.63, P = 0.005), respectively, compared with high adherence patients.
Medicare-enrolled women with low and moderate adherence to osteoporosis medications had a higher risk of a subsequent fracture compared with high adherence patients. These results highlight the importance of improving osteoporosis medication adherence among women enrolled in Medicare.
This study was funded by Eli Lilly. Xie, Keshishian, and Baser are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to Eli Lilly in connection with the study design, data analysis, and development of the manuscript for this study. Boytsov, Burge, Lombard, and Zhang are employees and stock owners of Eli Lilly. At the time of research, Krohn was an employee of Eli Lilly. Study concept and design were contributed by Burge and Lombard, along with the other authors. Xie, Baser, and Keshishian took the lead in data collection, assisted by the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Krohn and Zhang, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Keshishian and Boytsov, along with the other authors, and revised by Boytsov, Keshishian, and Burge, along with the other authors.
PDF