Brian L VanderBeek1, Kurt Scavelli2, Yinxi Yu3. 1. Scheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: brian.vanderbeek@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. Scheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess how patient choices (out-of-pocket costs, insurance plan, geographic region) impact initiation of therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using administrative medical claims data from a large, national insurer. PARTICIPANTS: All patients newly diagnosed with DME from 2013 through 2016 were observed for 90 days after diagnosis or until first treatment was received. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression was used to create odds ratios comparing different baseline demographic and patient-related factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the odds of receiving the different possible initial treatments for DME (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], focal laser treatment, steroids, or observation), no treatment, and not following up. RESULTS: Of the 6220 newly diagnosed DME patients, 3010 (48.4%) underwent a follow-up examination within 90 days of diagnosis, and of those, 1453 patients (48.3%) received treatment in the observation window, including 614 (20.4%) with bevacizumab, 191 (6.3%) with ranibizumab or aflibercept, 560 (18.6%) with focal laser, 38 (1.3%) with steroid injection, and 50 (1.7%) with an injection of an unspecified drug. Having a copay (vs. $0) lowered the odds of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.71; P < 0.001) and of receiving each treatment individually (anti-VEGF treatment: OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88; bevacizumab: OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; ranibizumab or aflibercept: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99; focal laser: OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; P < 0.001). Contrary to having a copay, having a high deductible and type of insurance plan were not associated with initiating treatment (P > 0.41 for all comparisons). Patients in the Northeast showed lower odds of initiating anti-VEGF treatment (OR = 0.60; 95%CI, 0.44-0.82; P < 0.001) and specifically bevacizumab (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, Northeast patients who were treated with anti-VEGF showed a higher odds of receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept compared with bevacizumab (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.31-4.37; P < 0.001). Southern Midwest patients showed a higher odds of treatment (anti-VEGF: OR = 1.35; 95%CI, 1.02-1.77; P < 0.001; bevacizumab: OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.87; focal laser: OR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.89; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient choices such as copays and where they live are important factors in determining the initial choice of treatment for DME.
PURPOSE: To assess how patient choices (out-of-pocket costs, insurance plan, geographic region) impact initiation of therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using administrative medical claims data from a large, national insurer. PARTICIPANTS: All patients newly diagnosed with DME from 2013 through 2016 were observed for 90 days after diagnosis or until first treatment was received. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression was used to create odds ratios comparing different baseline demographic and patient-related factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the odds of receiving the different possible initial treatments for DME (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], focal laser treatment, steroids, or observation), no treatment, and not following up. RESULTS: Of the 6220 newly diagnosed DMEpatients, 3010 (48.4%) underwent a follow-up examination within 90 days of diagnosis, and of those, 1453 patients (48.3%) received treatment in the observation window, including 614 (20.4%) with bevacizumab, 191 (6.3%) with ranibizumab or aflibercept, 560 (18.6%) with focal laser, 38 (1.3%) with steroid injection, and 50 (1.7%) with an injection of an unspecified drug. Having a copay (vs. $0) lowered the odds of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.71; P < 0.001) and of receiving each treatment individually (anti-VEGF treatment: OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88; bevacizumab: OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; ranibizumab or aflibercept: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99; focal laser: OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; P < 0.001). Contrary to having a copay, having a high deductible and type of insurance plan were not associated with initiating treatment (P > 0.41 for all comparisons). Patients in the Northeast showed lower odds of initiating anti-VEGF treatment (OR = 0.60; 95%CI, 0.44-0.82; P < 0.001) and specifically bevacizumab (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, Northeast patients who were treated with anti-VEGF showed a higher odds of receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept compared with bevacizumab (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.31-4.37; P < 0.001). Southern Midwest patients showed a higher odds of treatment (anti-VEGF: OR = 1.35; 95%CI, 1.02-1.77; P < 0.001; bevacizumab: OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.87; focal laser: OR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.89; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Patient choices such as copays and where they live are important factors in determining the initial choice of treatment for DME.
Authors: Jessica Greene; Judith Hibbard; James F Murray; Steven M Teutsch; Marc L Berger Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Sheila K Reiss; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Fang Zhang; Stephen B Soumerai; Alan M Zaslavsky; J Frank Wharam Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Michael J Elman; Haijing Qin; Lloyd Paul Aiello; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; Frederick L Ferris; Adam R Glassman; Raj K Maturi; Michele Melia Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Quan Dong Nguyen; David M Brown; Dennis M Marcus; David S Boyer; Sunil Patel; Leonard Feiner; Andrea Gibson; Judy Sy; Amy Chen Rundle; J Jill Hopkins; Roman G Rubio; Jason S Ehrlich Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-02-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ranjan Rajendram; Samantha Fraser-Bell; Andrew Kaines; Michel Michaelides; Robin D Hamilton; Simona Degli Esposti; Tunde Peto; Catherine Egan; Catey Bunce; Richard David Leslie; Philip G Hykin Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2012-08
Authors: Henry D Jampel; Sandra D Cassard; David S Friedman; Nakul S Shekhawat; Julia Whiteside-de Vos; Harry A Quigley; Emily W Gower Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.389