Real-world effectiveness of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor on the burden of illness in adolescents and adults with cystic fibrosis.

Background: Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) has been shown to be safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) aged ≥2 years. Here, we describe results from an observational study assessing change in burden of illness following initiating ELX/TEZ/IVA in real-world settings. Methods: This US-based, multicenter, observational study used data from electronic medical records to evaluate real-world burden of illness before and after ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation in people with CF aged ≥12 years heterozygous for F508del and a minimal function mutation (F/MF) or an uncharacterized CFTR mutation. Endpoints included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1), body mass index (BMI) and BMI-for-age z-score, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and numbers of pulmonary exacerbations (PEx). Results: Overall, 206 people with CF were enrolled (mean [SD] age 22.5 [11.1] years; 192 [93.2%] with F/MF genotype). Mean follow-up was 15.6 (SD, 1.6) months. Improvements in ppFEV1 (7.3 [95% CI: 5.7, 8.8] percentage points) were observed from baseline through follow-up. Increases in BMI (1.40 [95% CI: 1.07, 1.77] kg/m2) and BMI-for-age z-score (0.14 [95% CI: 0.00, 0.28]) were also observed from baseline at 12 months. The estimated annualized rate of any PEx was 1.31 at baseline and 0.61 over follow-up (rate ratio 0.47 [95% CI: 0.39, 0.55]), with annualized rates of PEx requiring antibiotics and hospitalizations of 0.55 and 0.88 in the baseline period and 0.12 and 0.36 over follow-up (rate ratios 0.22 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.31] and 0.41 [95% CI: 0.32, 0.51]), respectively. Absolute change in HbA1c was -0.22 (95% CI: -0.38, -0.06) from baseline through follow-up. Conclusions: ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment was associated with improved lung function, increased BMI, reduced frequency of PEx, and improved (i.e., reduced) HbA1c. These results confirm the broad clinical benefits of ELX/TEZ/IVA seen in clinical trials and show the potential for ELX/TEZ/IVA to improve markers of glucose metabolism.

24-hour urine oxalate and risk of chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: To assess whether 24-hr urine oxalate (UOx) excretion is a risk factor for incident chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: This longitudinal observational US-based study included 426,896 individuals age ≥ 18 years with no CKD at baseline and with at least one UOx and at least 6 months of baseline and 6 months of follow-up data. Of these, 11,239 (2.6%) had an underlying malabsorptive condition. Incident CKD, defined by relevant ICD codes, was identified from a multi-source data cloud containing individual-level healthcare claims and electronic medical records data. The association between categories of UOx and incident CKD was modeled using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, race, BMI, baseline urine calcium, urine citrate, urine volume, tobacco use, hypertension, diabetes, malabsorption, and cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 38.9 months (SD 21.7). Compared with individuals with UOx <20 mg/24-hr, the odds of developing incident CKD increased for UOx 20-29 mg/24-hr (multivariate-adjusted (MV) OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.21) through 80+ mg/24-hr (MVOR: 1.35 [1.21, 1.50] and was statistically significant for each UOx category. A similar pattern was seen in the subgroup with a malabsorptive condition though the magnitudes of association were larger, with the odds of developing incident CKD increased for UOx 20-29 mg/24-hr (MVOR: 1.50 [1.03, 2.20] through 80+ mg/24-hr (MVOR: 2.34 [1.50, 3.63] as compared with UOx <20 mg/24-hr. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of incident CKD increases with increasing 24-hr urine oxalate excretion. Future studies should examine whether reducing urine oxalate diminishes the risk of developing CKD.

Reduction in healthcare resource use through 24 months following sinus surgery with steroid-eluting implants in chronic rhinosinusitis patients with and without nasal polyps: a real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of steroid-eluting implants after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on health care resource use (HCRU) in chronic rhinosinusitis patients with (CRSwNP) and without (CRSsNP) nasal polyps. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study using real-world evidence data included adult patients with CRS who underwent ESS in 2015-2019 with at least 24 months of data before and after ESS. Patients who received implants were matched to patients who did not based on a propensity score developed using baseline characteristics and NP status. HCRU was compared between cohorts within each CRSwNP and CRSsNP subgroup using chi-square tests (binary variables). RESULTS: The implant cohort in the CRSwNP subgroup had fewer all-cause outpatient (90.0% vs. 93.9%, p < .001) and all-cause otolaryngology (64.3% vs. 76.4%, p < .001) visits as well as fewer endoscopy (40.5% vs. 47.4%, p = .005) and debridement (48.8% vs. 55.6%, p = .007) procedures than the non-implant cohort. The implant cohort in the CRSsNP subgroup had fewer all-cause outpatient (88.9% vs. 94.2%, p < .001) and all-cause otolaryngology (53.5% vs. 74.4%, p < .001) visits as well as fewer endoscopy (31.8% vs. 41.7%, p < .001) and debridement (36.7% vs. 53.4%, p <.001) procedures than the non-implant cohort. Revision sinus surgery was reduced in the implant cohort in both subgroups, and reached statistical significance in the CRSwNP subgroup (3.8% vs. 6.0%, p = .039) but not in the CRSsNP subgroup (3.6% vs. 4.2%, p = .539). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients receiving implants had lower HCRU for 24 months after sinus surgery independent of nasal polyp status, and revision surgery was reduced in CRSwNP patients. These findings provide additional evidence that long-term reductions in HCRU may be achieved with steroid-eluting implant use during sinus surgery.What is known on this topicPatients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) have a disproportionately higher burden of disease and consume greater healthcare resources than chronic rhinosinusitis patients without nasal polyps (CRSsNP).CRSwNP patients represent approximately 30% of CRS patients who undergo surgery, but their clinical course is disproportionally complicated by disease recurrence and revision surgery.Steroid-eluting sinus implants have been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term postoperative outcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in CRS patients in general.A recent real-world evidence study reported that steroid-eluting sinus implants following ESS were associated with a reduction in HCRU in CRS patients followed for 18 months, but the impact of implants on HCRU in CRSwNP and CRSsNP patients separately remains unknown. What this study addsIn this observational study, reduced HCRU was observed in CRSwNP and CRSsNP patients who receive steroid-eluting sinus implants.Use of implants in CRSwNP and CRSsNP patients was associated with a significant reduction in healthcare visits (all-cause outpatient, all-cause otolaryngology), and sinus procedures (endoscopy, debridement).Revision surgery was significantly reduced in the implant cohort of CRSwNP patients and trended lower in the implant cohort of CRSsNP patients.Use of implants had no significant impact on all-cause ER/urgent care visits or sinus-related imaging.

Real-world evidence analysis of the impact of steroid-eluting implants on healthcare resource use among chronic rhinosinusitis patients undergoing sinus surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare resource use (HCRU) in patients undergoing sinus surgery with or without steroid-eluting sinus implants. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study using real-world evidence data (OM1, Inc, Boston, MA, USA) was conducted on adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery between 2014 and 2019 and had at least 18 months of data both before and after surgery. Patients receiving implants ("implant cohort") were matched to patients who did not receive implants ("non-implant cohort") based on a propensity score developed using baseline characteristics. Chi-square for binary variables and analysis of variance tests for continuous variables were applied to compare HCRU measures. RESULTS: Comparison of the implant (N = 1983) and non-implant (N = 1983) cohorts during the 18-month follow-up period demonstrated significantly lower HCRU in those receiving implants, including all-cause outpatient visits (94.3% vs. 96.6%, p < .001), all-cause otolaryngologist visits (47.3% vs. 59.6%, p < .001) and all cause ER/urgent care visits (9.2% vs. 11.8%, p = .007), as well as sinus-related endoscopies (39.1% vs. 43.8%, p = .003). Although not statistically significant, fewer patients in the implant cohort had undergone repeat surgeries (4.6% vs. 5.3%, p = .273). CONCLUSION: Patients with steroid-eluting sinus implants had lower HCRU over a post-operative period of 18 months. These findings support the contention that reductions in HCRU may be achieved using steroid-eluting implants during sinus surgery.What is known on this topicChronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) causes severe symptoms that lead to poor quality of life.Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is 76-98% effective in improving CRS patients' symptoms.Surgical outcomes can be compromised in the immediate post-operative period by scarring, adhesion formation, and early polyp recurrence.Oral and topical corticosteroid therapy has become integral to the maintenance of successful surgical outcomes, the management of post-operative scarring and edema, and the prevention of nasal polyp recurrence.Steroid-eluting sinus implants have been shown in clinical trials to improve postoperative outcomes after ESS by delivering localized, sustained release of corticosteroids directly onto inflamed sinus tissue.What this study addsThis observational study is one of the first to use real-world evidence to assess the effect of steroid-eluting sinus implants on healthcare resource use (HCRU) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis who underwent sinus surgery with or without implants.Use of implants significantly reduced HCRU, including all-cause outpatient visits (94.3% vs 96.6%, p < .001), all-cause otolaryngologist visits (47.3% vs 59.6%, p < .001), and all-cause ER/urgent care visits (9.2% vs 11.8%, p = .007), as well as sinus endoscopy (39.1% vs 43.8%, p = .003).Use of implants had no significant effect on sinus procedures such as debridement and polypectomy, as well as sinus-related imaging such as CT, MRI, and x-ray.