Moriarty, James P.

Background/Objectives Facing penalties for preventable 30‐day hospital readmissions, many provider groups have implemented programs to remedy this problem, but the cost efficacy and value of such programs are not well delineated. The objective was to compare total cost of care over 30 days of individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions ( MCCT ) program and individuals not enrolled. Design Retrospective cohort study using secondary data analysis of a previously published cohort study. Setting Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Participants MCCT participants (n = 363) and individuals in a propensity‐matched referent cohort (n = 365). Intervention MCCT program enrollment. Measurements The primary outcome was total cost of care over 30 days after hospital discharge. A 2‐part modeling strategy was used to analyze 30‐day costs: whether individuals had non‐zero costs during the 30 days after discharge and a generalized linear model for individuals who incurred costs. Potential heterogeneous effects of the MCCT program were examined according to decile of 30‐day costs using quantile regression. Results Mean age was 83 in both groups. Adjusted mean 30‐day cost after hospitalization was $3,363 (95% confidence interval ( CI ) = $2,512−4,213) in the MCCT group and $4,161 (95% CI = $3,096−5,226) in the control group ( P = .25). Cost savings of $2,744 ( P = .008) at the eighth decile and $3,388 ( P = .20) at the ninth decile were demonstrated. Thus, the only statistically significant differences were in the post hoc subgroup analysis in the highest‐cost subgroups. Conclusion We did not find a difference in overall mean costs between the MCCT group and the control group, although intervention participants in the upper deciles of costs appeared to experience lower costs than controls. A larger study cohort might better determine the value of the intervention.

Purpose Skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone metastasis cause considerable morbidity, decrements in quality of life, and costs to the health care system. The results of a recent large randomized trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [CALGB/Alliance 70604]) showed that zoledronic acid (ZA) every 3 months was noninferior to monthly ZA in reducing the risks of SREs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases. Methods Using a Markov model, costs per SRE avoided were calculated for the three treatments. Sensitivity analyses were performed where denosumab SRE probabilities were assumed to be 50%, 75%, and 90% lower than the ZA SRE probabilities. Quality-adjusted life-years were also calculated. The analysis was from the US payer perspective. Results The mean costs of the denosumab treatment strategy are nine-fold higher than generic ZA every 3 months. Quality-adjusted life-years were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA every 3 months because it was the least costly treatment. The sensitivity analyses showed that relative to ZA every 3 months, the incremental costs per mean SRE avoided for denosumab ranged from $162,918 to $347,655. Conclusion ZA every 3 months was more CE in reducing the risks of SRE than monthly denosumab. This analysis was one of the first to incorporate the costs of generic ZA and one of the first independent CE analyses not sponsored by either Novartis or Amgen, the makers of ZA and denosumab, respectively. ZA every 3 months is the more CE option and more reasonable alternative to monthly denosumab.

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with multisystem organ failure and poor prognosis in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. We aimed to determine time trends in the epidemiology, economic burden, and mortality of ACLF in the United States. The National Inpatient Sample database was queried between 2001 and 2011. ACLF was defined as two or more extrahepatic organ failures in patients with cirrhosis. The primary outcomes were trends in hospitalizations, hospital costs, and inpatient mortality. The number of hospitalizations for cirrhosis in the United States nearly doubled from 371,000 in 2001 to 659,000 in 2011. The prevalence of ACLF among those hospitalizations increased from 1.5% (n = 5,400) to 5% (n = 32,300). The inpatient costs increased 2‐fold for cirrhosis ($4.8 billion to $9.8 billion) and 5‐fold ($320 million to $1.7 billion) for ACLF. In 2011, the cost per hospitalization for ACLF was 3.5‐fold higher than that for cirrhosis ($53,570 versus $15,193). The in‐hospital fatality rates decreased from 65% to 50% for ACLF and from 10% to 7% for cirrhosis. The organ failure trends in ACLF showed an increasing proportion of cardiovascular and cerebral and decreasing proportion of respiratory and renal failure. Age, male sex, and the number and types of organ failure were predictors of death in ACLF. Conclusion: Cirrhosis and ACLF represent a substantial and increasing health and economic burden in the United States; these data highlight an urgent need for research on pathophysiological mechanisms and effective therapy as well as for education of health care providers of its importance in the care of patients with cirrhosis. (H epatology 2016;64:2165‐2172).

To reliably assess quality, a standardized electronic approach is needed to identify bleeding events. The study aims were the following: (1) clinically validate an electronic health record–based algorithm for bleeding and (2) assess interrater results to determine validity and reliability. Data were analyzed before and after implementation of a pharmacist-managed warfarin protocol. Bleeding was based on ≥2 of 3 criteria: (1) diagnosis indicating bleeding, (2) lab value decrease suggesting bleeding, and (3) blood product use. All suspected bleeds (234) and a sample (58) not meeting criteria were compared with clinical review. There were 234 bleeding cases identified electronically. Reviewer agreement was 78.2% (κ = 0.565). Algorithm sensitivity was 93.9% and positive predictive value 46.2%. Algorithm identification was least accurate for those with only 2 criteria but good for those with all criteria. This study supports using multiple electronic criteria to identify bleeding events. However, cases having exactly 2 criteria may require manual review for validation.

Objective:To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of the following three treatments of uterine fibroids in a population of premenopausal women who wish to preserve their uteri: myomectomy, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) and uterine artery embolization (UAE).Materials & methods:A decision analytic Markov model was constructed. Cost–effectiveness was calculated in terms of US$ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 5 years. Two types of costs were calculated: direct costs only, and the sum of direct and indirect (productivity) costs. Women in the hypothetical cohort were assessed for treatment type eligibility, were treated based on eligibility, and experienced adequate or inadequate symptom relief. Additional treatment (myomectomy) occurred for inadequate symptom relief or recurrence. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate uncertainty in the model parameters.Results: In the base case, myomectomy, MRgFUS and UAE had the following combinations of mean cost and mean QALYs, respectively: US$15,459, 3.957; US$15,274, 3.953; and US$18,653, 3.943. When incorporating productivity costs, MRgFUS incurred a mean cost of US$21,232; myomectomy US$22,599; and UAE US$22,819. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and excluding productivity costs, myomectomy was cost effective at almost every decision threshold. Using PSA and incorporating productivity costs, myomectomy was cost effective at decision thresholds above US$105,000/QALY; MRgFUS was cost effective between US$30,000 and US$105,000/QALY; and UAE was cost effective below US$30,000/QALY.Conclusion:Myomectomy, MRgFUS, and UAE were similarly effective in terms of QALYs gained. Depending on assumptions about costs and willingness to pay for additional QALYs, all three treatments can be deemed cost effective in a 5-year time frame.