Abstract：
Aim: Exploring prescribing trends and economic burden of chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Methods: In the MarketScan® commercial insurance claims (employees and their spouses/dependents, 2018-2021), the first film or patch prescription date was an index event. The observation covered 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index periods. Results: Patients were propensity-score matched (708 per cohort). Buprenorphine initiation had stable cost trends in buccal film and increasing trends in transdermal patch cohort. Between-cohort comparisons of healthcare expenditures, cost trends and resource utilization showed significant differences, mostly in favor of buccal film. Buccal film also had higher daily doses and wider dosing range. Conclusion: Buprenorphine film is more cost-effective cLBP treatment with more flexible dosing.
What is this article about? This retrospective study included patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and commercial insurance in the USA. Only patients treated with Belbuca®, a buprenorphine buccal film, or a buprenorphine transdermal patch were included. Patients were observed 6 months prior to and 12 months after the first buprenorphine prescription. Healthcare costs, cost trends, resource use and buprenorphine treatment characteristics were explored.What were the results? Patients with cLBP on buccal film had lower costs, stable cost trends and less healthcare resources used. Also, they had higher buprenorphine daily doses.What do the results mean? The results imply that buccal film is less costly for cLBP patients than patches. The buccal film had more flexible dosing with higher daily doses, which might be associated with better pain control.
What is this article about? This retrospective study included patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and commercial insurance in the USA. Only patients treated with Belbuca®, a buprenorphine buccal film, or a buprenorphine transdermal patch were included. Patients were observed 6 months prior to and 12 months after the first buprenorphine prescription. Healthcare costs, cost trends, resource use and buprenorphine treatment characteristics were explored.What were the results? Patients with cLBP on buccal film had lower costs, stable cost trends and less healthcare resources used. Also, they had higher buprenorphine daily doses.What do the results mean? The results imply that buccal film is less costly for cLBP patients than patches. The buccal film had more flexible dosing with higher daily doses, which might be associated with better pain control.
摘要：
目的：探索慢性下腰痛（cLBP）患者处方丁丙诺啡口腔膜（Belbuca®）或透皮贴剂的处方趋势和经济负担。方法：在MarketScan®商业保险索赔(员工及其配偶/家属，2018-2021),首次胶卷或贴剂处方日期为索引事件.观察涵盖了6个月的指数前和12个月的指数后期间。结果：患者倾向评分匹配（每个队列708）。丁丙诺啡起始剂在口腔膜中具有稳定的成本趋势，而在透皮贴剂队列中具有增加的趋势。医疗支出的队列间比较，成本趋势和资源利用率表现出显著差异，主要是赞成颊膜。颊膜也具有较高的日剂量和较宽的剂量范围。结论：丁丙诺啡薄膜治疗cLBP更具成本效益，给药方式更灵活。
这篇文章是关于什么的？这项回顾性研究包括美国的慢性下腰痛（cLBP）和商业保险患者。只有接受Belbuca®治疗的患者，丁丙诺啡颊膜,或包括丁丙诺啡透皮贴剂。在第一次丁丙诺啡处方前6个月和后12个月观察患者。医疗费用,成本趋势,资源利用和丁丙诺啡处理特点进行了探讨。结果如何？口腔膜上有cLBP的患者费用较低，稳定的成本趋势和更少的医疗资源使用。此外，他们有更高的每日剂量丁丙诺啡。结果是什么意思？结果表明，对于cLBP患者而言，颊膜的成本低于贴剂。口腔膜具有更灵活的剂量，更高的日剂量，这可能与更好的疼痛控制有关。
这篇文章是关于什么的？这项回顾性研究包括美国的慢性下腰痛（cLBP）和商业保险患者。只有接受Belbuca®治疗的患者，丁丙诺啡颊膜,或包括丁丙诺啡透皮贴剂。在第一次丁丙诺啡处方前6个月和后12个月观察患者。医疗费用,成本趋势,资源利用和丁丙诺啡处理特点进行了探讨。结果如何？口腔膜上有cLBP的患者费用较低，稳定的成本趋势和更少的医疗资源使用。此外，他们有更高的每日剂量丁丙诺啡。结果是什么意思？结果表明，对于cLBP患者而言，颊膜的成本低于贴剂。口腔膜具有更灵活的剂量，更高的日剂量，这可能与更好的疼痛控制有关。
