Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 18(7): 906-918, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33607065

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in conjunction with digital mammography (DM) is becoming the preferred imaging modality for breast cancer screening compared with DM alone, on the basis of improved recall rates (RR) and cancer detection rates (CDRs). The aim of this study was to investigate racial differences in the utilization and performance of screening modality. METHODS: Retrospective data from 63 US breast imaging facilities from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Screening outcomes were linked to cancer registries. RR, CDR per 1,000 examinations, and positive predictive value for recall (cancers/recalled patients) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 385,503 women contributed 542,945 DBT and 261,359 DM screens. A lower proportion of screenings for Black women were performed using DBT plus DM (referred to as DBT) (44% for Black, 48% for other, 63% for Asian, and 61% for White). Non-White women were less likely to undergo more than one mammographic examination. RRs were lower for DBT among all women (8.74 versus 10.06, P < .05) and lower across all races and within age categories. RRs were significantly higher for women with only one mammogram. CDRs were similar or higher in women undergoing DBT compared with DM, overall (4.73 versus 4.60, adjusted P = .0005) and by age and race. Positive predictive value for recall was greater for DBT overall (5.29 versus 4.45, adjusted P < .0001) and by age, race, and screening frequency. CONCLUSIONS: All racial groups had improved outcomes with DBT screening, but disparities were observed in DBT utilization. These data suggest that reducing inequities in DBT utilization may improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Female , Humans , Mammography , Mass Screening , Retrospective Studies
2.
Curr Med Res Opin ; 35(1): 97-103, 2019 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30322282

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Patient support programs, such as the ASSURE Program for long-acting injectable aripiprazole, are designed to help support access to medications, including long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics for patients with schizophrenia. This study was conducted to evaluate adherence to long-acting injectable aripiprazole among patients utilizing the program local care centers (LCC). METHODS: Data collected from participating LCC between October 2014 and February 2018 were utilized. Characteristics of patients receiving injections at LCC and participating in additional support services of the program, types of program offering utilized and patient cost share for long-acting injectable aripiprazole were described. Adherence, measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC) during follow-up, was estimated in patients utilizing the LCC for 6 months and 9 months. Patients with PDC ≥80% were considered adherent to treatment. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four patients received at least one injection at participating LCC and enrolled in the patient support program. Mean (SD) age was 37.3 (13.5) years; 60.7% were male; 32.5% were covered by Medicare. In total, 157 and 87 patients were actively utilizing the LCC for at least 6 months and 9 months, respectively. PDC of 97% and 98% were reported among patients with 6 months and 9 months of follow-up, respectively, and patients were considered adherent to long-acting injectable aripiprazole during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients utilizing the LCC demonstrated high medication adherence, suggesting that injection services provided by the centers may reduce barriers to treatment and help patients with schizophrenia remain on LAI antipsychotic treatment.


Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Aripiprazole/therapeutic use , Medication Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Schizophrenia/drug therapy , Adult , Community Health Centers , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult
3.
J Addict Dis ; 37(1-2): 34-45, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30592231

ABSTRACT

The aim was to examine prevalence of past 30-day prescription stimulant nonmedical use (NMU) by adults assessed for substance use problems and to better understand patterns of route of administration (ROA) and drug problem severity. Data were collected from a computer administered assessment of substance use problems completed by adults (age ≥ 18) using the Addiction Severity Index-Multimedia Version (ASI-MV®) as part of the clinical intake process between January 2013 and March 2016. A cross-sectional observational study examined prevalence and prescription-adjusted prevalence of past 30-day NMU of prescription stimulants and compound-specific use by ROA (oral, snort, smoke, inject, other oral, and alternate ROA). Compounds of interest were amphetamine extended-release (ER), amphetamine immediate-release (IR), amphetamine mixed salts, methylphenidate ER, and methylphenidate IR. Of 198,411 respondents, 4,185 reported prescription stimulant NMU, prevalence ranged from 0.33% for methylphenidate IR to 1.61% for amphetamine mixed salts. Prescription-adjusted prevalence of NMU was highest for methylphenidate IR (0.51%) and lowest for amphetamine ER (0.28%). The most common ROA was oral, swallowed whole followed by snorting. There was a greater probability of nonmedical prescription stimulant use among respondents with higher drug severity ratings. Results suggest that one should not overlook the impact of prescription stimulant NMU in adults in treatment for substance use problems. NMU of prescription stimulants was associated with riskier routes of administration than reported for college student samples. A pattern of high-risk alternate ROA and increasing drug problem severity has important implications of substance use evaluation.


Subject(s)
Central Nervous System Stimulants/adverse effects , Substance Abuse Treatment Centers/statistics & numerical data , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Adult , Age Factors , Central Nervous System Stimulants/administration & dosage , Delayed-Action Preparations/administration & dosage , Delayed-Action Preparations/adverse effects , Drug Administration Routes , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Sex Factors , United States , Young Adult
4.
Am Health Drug Benefits ; 11(6): 293-301, 2018 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30464796

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition characterized by widespread pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances that affects approximately 2% to 4% of the adult population in the United States, with minimal real-world data related to the use of medications and associated dosages for this condition. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the real-world dosing patterns of the 3 medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for fibromyalgia-pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran. METHODS: Using QuintilesIMS' (now IQVIA) electronic medical record data linked to administrative claims, we identified adults with fibromyalgia who were newly prescribed pregabalin, duloxetine, or milnacipran between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2014. We summarized and compared the starting and maximum doses with United States prescribing information (USPI) dosing recommendations. RESULTS: In all, 1043 patients who were receiving pregabalin, 1281 receiving duloxetine, and 326 patients receiving milnacipran with similar age and comorbidity profiles were included in the study. The mean starting dose was 176 mg daily, 56 mg daily, and 95 mg daily for pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran, respectively. More patients receiving pregabalin (35%) had a starting dose lower than recommended compared with patients receiving duloxetine (7%) or milnacipran (17%; P <.0001). Of the patients who received pregabalin, 27% had USPI-recommended maintenance dosing versus 91% of patients who received duloxetine and 80% who received milnacipran (P <.0001). The mean duration of treatment was longer for duloxetine (205 days; P <.0001) than for pregabalin (167 days) and milnacipran (167 days). The duration of using the maximum dose of each medication as a percentage of the total time of medication use was 77% for pregabalin, 84% for duloxetine, and 90% for milnacipran (P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using pregabalin were the most likely of the 3 cohorts to receive lower than label-recommended starting doses and the least likely to receive the recommended maintenance doses during follow-up compared with those receiving duloxetine or milnacipran. Real-world prescribing patterns indicate that factors other than label recommendations may be influencing prescribed dosing.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...