Utilizing Combined Claims and Clinical Datasets for Research Among Potential Cases of Rare Diseases

Evaluation of clinical characteristics, health care resource utilization, and cost outcomes of hemophilia A carriers and noncarriers in the United States: A real-world comparative analysis

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia A is often viewed as a male disease; females are usually considered asymptomatic hemophilia A carriers. However, hemophilia A carriers may experience mild-to-severe bleeding events. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics, health care resource utilization, and costs incurred by hemophilia A carriers compared with a non-hemophilia A carrier female control population in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used data from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Multi-State Medicaid Databases from January 1, 2016, to September 30, 2019. Patients with a hemophilia A carrier diagnosis were matched to a non-hemophilia A carrier female control group in a 1:2 ratio based on sociodemographic characteristics, pregnancy status, and insurance type. Billed annualized bleed rates, health care resource utilization, and annualized costs were evaluated. Generalized linear models compared annualized total costs in the hemophilia A carrier and control groups. RESULTS: After matching, the hemophilia A carrier group included 121 (Commercial) and 55 (Medicaid) patients, matched 1:2 in the control group. Patients in the hemophilia A carrier group (compared with the control group) had numerically higher joint-related health issues (Commercial: 11.6% vs 7.9%; Medicaid: 7.3% vs 4.5%) and lower soft-tissue disorders (Commercial: 13.2% vs 17.4%; Medicaid: 12.7% vs 14.5%). Musculoskeletal pain was higher (33.1% vs 31.0%) and lower (21.8% vs 25.5%) in the Commercial and Medicaid databases, respectively. Billed annualized bleed rates were higher in the hemophilia A carrier group (Commercial: 0.49 vs 0.33; Medicaid: 0.50 vs 0.29). Significantly more patients in the hemophilia A carrier group had minor bleeds (Commercial: 34.7% vs 22.3% [P = 0.001]; Medicaid: 43.6% vs 20.0% [P < 0.001]) and spontaneous bleeds (Commercial: 35.5% vs 21.5%; Medicaid: 47.3% vs 23.6% [P < 0.001 for both]). Outpatient visits represented the majority of health care resource utilization and were higher in the hemophilia A carrier group for all-cause and bleed-related claims; although less frequent, emergency department and inpatient visits followed a similar trend. In the Commercial and Medicaid databases, hemophilia A carriers incurred approximately 2 times higher mean (SD) all-cause health care total costs than patients in the control group (Commercial: $15,345 [21,871] vs $8,358 [11,939] per patient per year [PPPY]; Medicaid: $9,022 [19,461] vs $4,533 [9,532] PPPY). CONCLUSIONS: Hemophilia A carriers experienced more complications and incurred higher costs (resulting from more outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient visits) compared with patients in the control group. These data suggest that hemophilia A carriers have a high disease and economic burden and may benefit from early diagnosis and management to prevent long-term complications. DISCLOSURES: Dr Xing, Dr Bullano, Dr Caicedo, and Mr Farahbakhshian are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., hold Takeda stocks, and have been granted restricted stock shares; Drs Xing and Caicedo received support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., for travel to THSNA 2022, where the data included in this manuscript were presented. Dr Batt received consulting fees from Complete HEOR Solutions (CHEORS) LLC for the protocol development, data analysis, and interpretation of this study; she also holds stocks from Merck and Sanofi. Ms Kuharic is an employee of the University of Illinois at Chicago and has been supported by a Takeda fellowship during the execution of the study. Ms Chakladar and Ms Markan were employees of CHEORS LLC at the time of the study. CHEORS has received funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., for conducting the analysis of this study. This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. The sponsor was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; development and review of the manuscript; and decision to submit manuscript to publication.

Real-world analysis of patients with haemophilia A and haemophilia A carriers in the United States: Demographics, clinical characteristics and costs

INTRODUCTION

Females with haemophilia A (HA [FHAs]) and HA carriers (HACs) have an increased risk of bleeding and complications compared to the general population.

AIM

To examine the characteristics, billed annualised bleed rates (ABRb ), costs and healthcare resource utilisation for males with HA (MHAs), FHAs and HACs in the United States.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases (Commercial and Medicaid) for claims during the index period (July 2016 to September 2018) and analysed across MHAs, FHAs and HACs.

RESULTS

Dual diagnosis females (DDFs; both HA and HAC claims) were grouped as a separate cohort. MHAs were generally younger than females (all cohorts) by up to 19 years (Commercial) and 23 years (Medicaid). ABRb  >0 was more frequent in females. Factor VIII claims were higher for MHAs versus female cohorts. Joint-related health issues were reported for 24.4 and 25.6% (Commercial) and 29.3 and 26.6% (Medicaid) of MHAs and FHAs, respectively; lower rates were reported in the other two cohorts. Heavy menstrual bleeding claims occurred for approximately a fifth (Commercial) to a quarter (Medicaid) of female cohorts. All-cause emergency department and inpatient visits in FHAs and DDFs were similar to, or more frequent than, those in MHAs; bleed-related inpatient visits were infrequent. In MHAs (Commercial), mean all-cause total costs ($214,083) were higher than in FHAs ($40,388), HACs ($15,647) and DDFs ($28,320) with similar trends for Medicaid patients.

CONCLUSIONS

FHAs and HACs may be undermanaged and undertreated. Further research is needed to fully understand these cohorts' bleeding rates, long-term complications and costs.

Data Challenges for Externally Controlled Trials: Viewpoint

The preferred evidence of a large randomized controlled trial is difficult to adopt in scenarios, such as rare conditions or clinical subgroups with high unmet needs, and evidence from external sources, including real-world data, is being increasingly considered by decision makers. Real-world data originate from many sources, and identifying suitable real-world data that can be used to contextualize a single-arm trial, as an external control arm, has several challenges. In this viewpoint article, we provide an overview of the technical challenges raised by regulatory and health reimbursement agencies when evaluating comparative efficacy, such as identification, outcome, and time selection challenges. By breaking down these challenges, we provide practical solutions for researchers to consider through the approaches of detailed planning, collection, and record linkage to analyze external data for comparative efficacy.

Summary of Selected Healthcare Encounters among a Selection of Patients with Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy

OBJECTIVE

Research has not examined the use of health care by patients with myotonic muscular dystrophy (MMD), but it would provide insights into this population, which is prone to comorbidities and high service needs. This study is an analysis of this understudied subgroup, using a unique linked dataset to examine the characteristics and healthcare utilization patterns for people with MMD.

METHODS

This analysis used 3 South Carolina datasets (2009-2014). The subjects included individuals with at least 1 encounter with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code of 359.21. The variables included sex, race, visit type, payer, and diagnoses. The analyses examined characteristics and number of encounters.

RESULTS

The subjects were predominately female, white, and 45 to 64 years old. A total of 44.6% of the study population had at least 1 inpatient visit, whereas 64.2% had at least 1 emergency department visit. A majority of the subjects had at least 1 office visit (55.0%), and most (85.3%) did not have a home health encounter.

CONCLUSIONS

Investigation of the reasons for these inpatient and emergency department encounters may be helpful in identifying ways to deliver high-quality care.