ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Although short-term clinical trials have demonstrated that switching from infliximab (INF) bio-originator to its biosimilar is safe with no significant loss of efficacy, there are limited real-world data comparing their patterns of use and adherence. METHODS: Using 2015-2018 IBM Marketscan data, we established 4 cohorts of patients with at least one administration or pharmacy claim for INF bio-originator or biosimilar in 2017, including INF naïve biosimilar users, INF prevalent biosimilar users, INF naïve bio-originator users, and INF prevalent bio-originator users, defined according to their prior use of INF from 2015 to their first INF administration in 2017. The proportion of days covered (PDC) was calculated for patients with at least 6, 12, or 18 months of follow-up time. Factors associated with optimal adherence (PDC > 80%) were evaluated using log-binomial models. RESULTS: We identified 96 INF naïve biosimilar users, 223 INF prevalent biosimilar users, 2,149 INF naïve bio-originator users, and 10,970 INF prevalent bio-originator users. At the end of 18 months of follow-up, 64% of INF prevalent bio-originators, 48% of INF naïve biosimilars, 41% of INF naïve bio-originators, and 36% of INF prevalent biosimilars had optimal adherence. Depression, previous hospitalization, and greater use of prior biologics were negatively associated with adherence, whereas IBD diagnoses (referent to RA) and age 55-64 (referent to < 35) were positively associated with high adherence. CONCLUSION: INF prevalent users had higher adherence in our analyses than INF naïve users. However, further studies with larger sample size are needed to evaluate INF biosimilar users' adherence.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Ten medical societies have called for scientific literature to integrate research on delirium and encephalopathy, while physicians continually debate how to accurately document diagnoses of acute confusional states. OBJECTIVE: To promote this integration, we evaluated trends in diagnoses of delirium and encephalopathy among hospitalized adults and physician specialties, incorporating transitions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 and the International Classification of Disease, tenth edition. METHODS: Using the 2011-2018 IBM MarketScan datasets, we identified delirium/encephalopathy patients aged ≥18 years using International Classification of Disease 9/10 codes among hospitalized patients. We identified physician specialties associated with the hospitalization and comorbidities within one year before the diagnosis of delirium or encephalopathy. Log-binomial models were used to evaluate diagnostic trends, adjusting for age, gender, insurance, and comorbidities. RESULTS: We identified 10,509 hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of delirium and 94,438 with encephalopathy between 2011 and 2018. Although the number of patients with either diagnosis increased over time, the use of delirium diagnosis was less than it was for encephalopathy compared with 2011 after adjusting for covariates (adjusted risk ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.48). During the 8 years, neurologists and internists increased their use of both diagnoses, whereas only psychiatrists increased their use of delirium. Family practice physicians and nurse practitioners presented no significant change in either diagnosis for this timeframe. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that refined diagnostic codes and criteria may alter trends among clinicians in diagnosing delirium and/or encephalopathy. Additional diagnostic clarity may be necessary to support refined diagnoses among family practice physicians and nurse practitioners.
