Predictors and Risk Factors of Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Systematic Review.

Objective: To systematically review the literature to identify and categorize the predictors and risk factors for treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Data Sources: Online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycNet) and relevant conference sources were searched from inception up to January 24, 2022. The following keywords were used: treatment-resistant depression, depressive disorder, predictors, risk, and biomarkers.Study Selection: All studies that included a definition of TRD were included. A total of 1,686 abstracts were screened, and 57 studies were included in the final data synthesis.Data Extraction: Data were extracted using a data extraction form developed for this study.Results: The most frequently reported mental predictors/risk factors were greater symptom severity (9 studies), suicidality (8 studies), and recurrent depression (6 studies). Cardiovascular disease (4 studies), pain (3 studies), and thyroid dysfunction (3 studies) were the most common physical predictors/risk factors, while younger age (7 studies) and female gender (6 studies) were the most common demographic predictors/risk factors. Higher levels of neuroticism appeared twice in the literature. Several articles reported on genetic, biological, and imaging variables, but results were too heterogenous to identify common predictors/risk factors.Conclusions: TRD is a complex disorder with many contributing factors that need to be identified and addressed earlier in the disease course to prevent its development or facilitate better treatment outcomes. Future work should focus on replicating the key predictors/risk factors identified in this review.

HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of hypothesis evaluating real-world evidence studies on treatment effects: A good practices report of a joint ISPE/ISPOR task force.

PROBLEM: Ambiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision-making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. WHAT WE DID: The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision-making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The overarching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision-making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. STRATEGIES TO DISSEMINATE AND FACILITATE USE: Recognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: The HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions.

HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of Hypothesis Evaluating Real-World Evidence Studies on Treatment Effects: A Good Practices Report of a Joint ISPE/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Ambiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision-making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. METHODS: The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision-making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The over-arching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision-making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. STRATEGIES TO DISSEMINATE AND FACILITATE USE: Recognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: The HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions.

Observational study to characterize treatment-resistant depression in Germany, France and the United Kingdom: analysis of real-world data collected through a survey of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes treatment patterns, productivity, healthcare resource utilization and previous episodes of depression for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a quantitative survey was administered to 225 healthcare providers (HCPs) distributed evenly across Germany, France and the UK from July to August 2021. Each HCP was asked to answer based on medical records of five patients with TRD, defined as patients failing to respond to two or more treatments of adequate dose and duration in the same episode of major depressive disorder (MDD), which provided a sample size of 1125 patients. RESULTS: Of the 1125 patients with TRD, 73.2% had two or more previous episodes of MDD, 46.3% had a history of suicidal ideation and 24.8% had attempted suicide. Only 26.8% of patients were employed either full-time or part-time. During the most recent/current TRD episode, 45.5% of patients received five or more lines of treatment, and 46.0% remained on monotherapy. For multiple pharmacological treatments, too many distinct combinations were used to discern trends. Overall, 60.6% of patients had at least one mental health-related hospitalization in the last 12 months; 35.0% had two or more hospitalizations. Half of TRD patients saw a doctor five or more times per year for their depression. CONCLUSIONS: This study addresses the knowledge gap about treatment patterns and healthcare utilization in real-world practice for TRD patients in three European countries. It provides data that potentially could inform treatment guideline development and optimize patient-perceived benefits from the treatment of TRD.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals assessed in observational studies compared with randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. RESULTS: Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.

Improving Transparency to Build Trust in Real-World Secondary Data Studies for Hypothesis Testing-Why, What, and How: Recommendations and a Road Map from the Real-World Evidence Transparency Initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Improving transparency to build trust in real-world secondary data studies for hypothesis testing-Why, what, and how: recommendations and a road map from the real-world evidence transparency initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Impact of Nivolumab versus Docetaxel on Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from the CheckMate 017 Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the phase III CheckMate 017 study, nivolumab prolonged overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. Study objectives included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom assessments. METHODS: Patients serially completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and European Quality of Life Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) (mean score for six lung cancer-specific symptoms; range 0-100), LCSS three-item global index, EQ-5D utility index, and EQ-5D visual analog scale scores were analyzed. The proportion of patients exhibiting clinically meaningful improvement (a ≥10-point decrease) in ASBI scores by week 12 was a secondary end point. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analysis of HRQoL changes from baseline and analyses of time to HRQoL deterioration were conducted. RESULTS: Baseline mean plus or minus SD LCSS ASBI scores were similar in the nivolumab (29.6 ± 16.4) and docetaxel (29.6 ± 14.7) groups. By week 12, the proportions of patients (95% confidence interval) with clinically meaningful improvement in ASBI scores were 20.0% (13.6-27.7) with nivolumab and 21.9% (15.3-29.8) with docetaxel. At weeks 16 to 54, significant improvements in ASBI scores from baseline were seen with nivolumab; clinically meaningful improvements were observed at weeks 42 to 84. No significant changes in ASBI scores from baseline were observed with docetaxel; at week 36, a clinically meaningful deterioration was seen. Improvements in HRQoL with nivolumab versus with docetaxel were supported by other measures, and time to first HRQoL deterioration was longer. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab alleviates symptom burden and improves health status versus docetaxel as second-line squamous NSCLC treatment.

Economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced squamous NSCLC in Canada: a comparison of modeling approaches to estimate and extrapolate survival outcomes.

Background Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer in the world and is associated with significant mortality. Nivolumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were previously treated. The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab has not been assessed in Canada. A contentious component of projecting long-term cost and outcomes in cancer relates to the modeling approach adopted, with the two most common approaches being partitioned survival (PS) and Markov models. The objectives of this analysis were to estimate the cost-utility of nivolumab and to compare the results using these alternative modeling approaches. Methods Both PS and Markov models were developed using docetaxel and erlotinib as comparators. A three-health state model was used consisting of progression-free, progressed disease, and death. Disease progression and time to progression were estimated by identifying best-fitting survival curves from the clinical trial data for PFS and OS. Expected costs and health outcomes were calculated by combining health-state occupancy with medical resource use and quality-of-life assigned to each of the three health states. The health outcomes included in the model were survival and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs). Results Nivolumab was found to have the highest expected per-patient cost, but also improved per-patient life years (LYs) and QALYs. Nivolumab cost an additional $151,560 and $140,601 per QALY gained compared to docetaxel and erlotinib, respectively, using a PS model approach. The cost-utility estimates using a Markov model were very similar ($152,229 and $141,838, respectively, per QALY gained). Conclusions Nivolumab was found to involve a trade-off between improved patient survival and QALYs, and increased cost. It was found that the use of a PS or Markov model produced very similar estimates of expected cost, outcomes, and incremental cost-utility.

Global patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma management from diagnosis to death: the BRIDGE Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide. The global HCC BRIDGE study was a multiregional, large-scale, longitudinal cohort study undertaken to improve understanding of real-life management of patients with HCC, from diagnosis to death. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from January 2005 to September 2012 by chart reviews of eligible patients newly diagnosed with HCC at participating institutions. RESULTS: Forty-two sites in 14 countries contributed final data for 18 031 patients. Asia accounted for 67% of patients, Europe for 20% and North America for 13%. As expected, the most common risk factor was hepatitis C virus in North America, Europe and Japan, and hepatitis B virus in China, South Korea and Taiwan. The most common Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage at diagnosis was C in North America, Europe, China and South Korea, and A in Taiwan and Japan. Across all stages, first HCC treatment was most frequently transarterial chemoembolization in North America, Europe, China and South Korea, percutaneous ethanol injection or radiofrequency ablation in Japan and resection in Taiwan. Survival from first HCC treatment varied significantly by region, with median overall survival not reached for Taiwan and 60, 33, 31, 24 and 23 months for Japan, North America, South Korea, Europe and China respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Initial results from the BRIDGE study confirm previously reported regional trends in patient demographic characteristics and HCC risk factors, document the heterogeneity of treatment approaches across regions/countries and underscore the need for earlier HCC diagnosis worldwide.

Value-based assessment of pharmacodiagnostic testing from early stage development to real-world use.

Disease etiology may be regarded as a consequence of both genotypic and biochemical phenomena, which impact individual patients in different ways. Disease prognosis, beneficial treatment response, and susceptibility to adverse drug effects are often intimately tied to individual biology. Clinical and genetic biomarkers applied individually or in concert are increasingly used to stratify patient populations in terms of prognosis, therapeutic benefit, or safety. As a result, clinical trialists are challenged to design studies that reflect these determinants of outcome, to optimize the patient's eventual clinical course both in the trial and in actual practice. These designs are informed both by preclinical studies and by real-world research that can establish proof of concept for a novel biomarker and provide a basic understanding of the relationship between biomarker and clinical outcome. As clinical and real-world studies unfold, a deeper understanding of the nature of the biomarker and its potential uses in drug development is gained. Specifically, one can eventually define the biomarker as prognostic (i.e., predicts disease progression), predictive (predicts treatment response or adverse outcome(s)), or exhibiting both prognostic and predictive properties. One must further validate the performance of these emerging biomarkers, again in both the trial and real-world environments. The eventual adoption of the biomarker as a useful pharmacodiagnostic test is premised upon this early translational research. In this article, the development and validation of predictive and prognostic biomarkers is discussed by using selected examples that highlight factors contributing to the valuation of biomarkers and their application to personalized medicine in the real world.

Q-TWiST analysis of ixabepilone in combination with capecitabine on quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with ixabepilone and capecitabine (cape) is approved for use in patients with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer that is resistant to treatment with anthracyclines or taxanes. The current study evaluated the trade-off between quality and quantity of life using quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) outcomes. METHODS: Within the trial, 752 women were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of ixabepilone and cape (once every 21 days) or cape alone (on days 1-14). The area under the survival curve was partitioned into 3 health states: toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity, and recurrence (relapse [REL]). The mean time in each health state was weighted by a range of utilities and summed to estimate quality-adjusted survival (QAS). Patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Breast Symptom Index (FBSI). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between groups with regard to change from baseline FBSI scores favoring the cape group was observed (P = .0002), but no differences were observed after adjusting for deaths in the analysis. All combinations of utilities for REL and TOX resulted in an observed difference in QAS favoring combination therapy. Differences were found to be statistically significant for comparisons, with higher tolerance for TOX. QAS was found to be greater for the combination therapy group (42.2 weeks vs 38.4 weeks), assuming the base case scenario of utility equal to 0.5 for both TOX and REL (P = .0227). CONCLUSIONS: The Q-TWiST analysis supports a positive benefit-risk ratio for the combination of ixabepilone plus cape in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer that is refractory to anthracyclines and taxanes versus cape alone, despite the potential for added toxicities with combination therapy.

Design and rationale of the HCC BRIDGE study in China: a longitudinal, multicenter cohort trial in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of the worldwide cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in China, and this malignancy currently represents the country's second leading cause of cancer death in cities and the leading cause in rural areas. Despite recent advances in the control and management of hepatocellular carcinoma within China, this disease remains a major health care issue. The global HCC BRIDGE study, designed to assess patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma therapy use and associated outcomes across real-world clinical practice, has recently been expanded as a national study in China, allowing a detailed analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma in this important country. METHODS/DESIGN: The global HCC BRIDGE study is a multiregional longitudinal cohort trial including patients newly diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2011, who are receiving treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma via sites in the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. The HCC BRIDGE China national study comprises the portion of the global HCC BRIDGE study conducted within mainland China. Patients will be followed from time of diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (post-January 1, 2005) to time of death or December 31, 2011, whichever comes first. Data will be collected on demographic/clinical characteristics, relevant laboratory values, hepatocellular carcinoma/underlying liver disease treatment, tumor response, adverse events, hospitalizations, and overall survival. The primary study end point is overall survival; secondary end points are disease progression, treatment-limiting adverse events, and treatment failure. RESULTS: At the time of writing, 15 sites have selected for participation across all 7 traditional regions of China (North, North-East, East, South, South-West, North-West, and Central). The anticipated study population from the China national study is approximately 9000 patients. DISCUSSION: Findings from the HCC BRIDGE China national study, the first geographically representative study of hepatocellular carcinoma in China, will contribute to the understanding of patterns of therapy use and related clinical outcomes and will provide further information on continuing unmet needs for hepatocellular carcinoma throughout this important country.

Factors that affect risk for hepatocellular carcinoma and effects of surveillance.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States is increasing. Surveillance may affect the stage at diagnosis and consequently the treatment options available for HCC. We evaluated risk factors for HCC, the proportion of cases detected via surveillance, tumor characteristics, treatment approaches, and overall patient survival in a referral center cohort. METHODS: The study included all patients diagnosed with HCC at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from 2007 to 2009 (n = 460). Clinical information was retrospectively abstracted from the medical record. RESULTS: Hepatitis C virus (HCV, 36%), alcohol use (29%), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD, 13%) were the most common risk factors for HCC. HCV was present in 56% of patients younger than 60. NAFLD was present in 19% of patients older than 60. HCC was detected during surveillance in 31% of patients. Patients with worse liver function were more likely to be on surveillance. Transarterial chemoembolization, surgical resection, and liver transplantation were the most common treatment approaches for HCC. Patients diagnosed with HCC during surveillance had less advanced disease, were more likely to be eligible for potentially curative treatments, and had increased survival times (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: At a major US referral center, the predominant HCC etiologies were HCV, alcohol use, and NAFLD. HCCs were detected during surveillance in the minority of patients. HCCs detected during surveillance were of less advanced stage, and patients were more likely to receive treatment that prolonged their survival.

Patterns of initial pharmacotherapy for Parkinson's disease in the United States.

Data from a mix of employer- and government-funded health plans were used to investigate actual treatment patterns for patients initiating pharmacotherapy for Parkinson's disease in the United States. Treatment patterns evaluated included type of initial therapy and rates and types of adjunctive and substitute therapies. The study confirms that levodopa remains the most often prescribed initial treatment for Parkinson's disease regardless of age or drug benefit coverage. The widespread use of levodopa in young Parkinson's patients (<65 years) with private insurance may indicate that physicians are not overly concerned about or are not fully aware of the association of levodopa with long-term motor complications. It may also indicate that currently available alternatives to levodopa are not sufficiently effective or well tolerated.

Burden of illness in Parkinson's disease.

This study quantifies direct medical care costs for individual patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and projects total national costs of PD. Anonymous, patient-level data on health care utilization and cost were obtained from Medstat's MarketScan Research Databases. Patients were selected for study if they had either two instances of a diagnosis of PD or one diagnosis and two or more prescriptions for PD-related medication. A control group of persons without PD was selected for comparison. Total annual health care utilization and costs were calculated for both PD patients and controls. A total of 20,016 patients with PD were identified and followed up for an average of 853 days. The mean age of the patients was 73.6 years, and 51.2% were women. Total annual direct costs were 23,101 US Dollars (SD 27,529) per patient with PD versus 11,247 US Dollars (SD 16,486) for controls. The regression-adjusted incremental direct cost of PD versus control was 10,349 US Dollars (95% confidence interval, 9,053, 11,645). Adding 25,326 US Dollars in indirect costs, and multiplying by 645,000 cases of PD in the United States, the total cost to the nation is projected to be 23 billion US Dollars annually. This estimate is higher than most previous studies, with important implications for health care delivery systems worldwide.

Contribution of hypoglycemia to medical care expenditures and short-term disability in employees with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is the third-most expensive physical health condition among US employees. We sought to evaluate the contribution of hypoglycemia to these costs. METHODS: We studied 2664 employees using insulin for whom medical encounters and short-term disability (STD) records were available. RESULTS: Among these employees, 442 (16.6%) had a diagnosis of hypoglycemia during an average follow-up of 2.5 years. The risk of hospitalization and emergency room visits was increased twofold in this group. Much of this excess was associated with hypoglycemia. The annualized medical cost of hypoglycemia was $3241. Patients with hypoglycemia had 77% more STD days annually. The risk of STD in the week after hypoglycemia was increased fivefold. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that hypoglycemia contributes substantially to medical care utilization and to disability-related work absence among employees using insulin.

Health care utilization and expenditures in the United States: a study of osteoporosis-related fractures.

BACKGROUND: More than 1.5 million fractures occur due to osteoporosis each year. This study examines the annual health care utilization and associated expenditures of osteoporotic patients who sustain a new fragility fracture and of those without a new fracture. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The study sample from commercial claims databases consisted of patients enrolled in US plans between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2001. Patients with both an osteoporosis diagnosis and a related fracture were classified as "osteoporosis with concurrent fracture"; all other osteoporosis patients were classified as "osteoporosis without concurrent fracture." Annual utilization and expenditures for the concurrent-fracture cohort were compared with those without concurrent fracture, as well as with a group of patients without osteoporosis (controls) that was matched to the concurrent-fracture cohort based on age, gender, US region, health plan type, and length of enrollment. Exponential conditional mean models were used to compute regression-adjusted total expenditures across the groups. The differences in adjusted expenditures were used to generate the economic burden-of-illness estimates. RESULTS: Osteoporosis patients with concurrent fracture incurred more than twice the overall health care expenditures in the study period, compared with those without fracture (US $15,942 vs $6,476), and nearly three times those of the control group (US $15,942 vs $4,658). Approximately 25% of the overall health care expenditures (US $4,014 of $15,942) for the concurrent-fracture group were osteoporosis-related expenditures, leading to the conclusion that comorbid conditions in osteoporosis patients with concurrent fracture contribute significantly to overall health care costs. Some of these comorbidity-related costs were likely due to pain-related disorders, which occurred significantly more frequently in the concurrent-fracture cohort than in the other groups. CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis-related expenditures, particularly those related to fracture, were substantial. However, non-osteoporosis-related expenditures to treat comorbid conditions constituted 75% of the overall health care costs in the year after an osteoporosis-related fracture, which warrants further investigation.

Asthma hospitalization risk and costs for patients treated with fluticasone propionate vs montelukast.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids have been shown to reduce rates of hospitalization and emergency department use compared with leukotriene receptor antagonists. OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in the probability of asthma-related hospitalizations, probability of switching or augmentin, with another therapy, and costs for patients treated with fluticasone propionate vs montelukast. METHODS: The study involved a 24-month retrospective analysis of patients with claims for asthma treatment (primary diagnosis International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision code of 493.xx) between January 1, 1997, and June 30, 2000, and at least I outpatient pharmaceutical claim for fluticasone propionate (44 microg) or montelukast (5 or 10 mg). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the probability of asthma-related hospitalizations and switching or augmenting to another therapy, asthma costs, and total health care costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by replicating all of the analyses by age strata (ages 4-17 years and > or = 18 years) and varying lengths of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients receiving fluticasone propionate had a 62% lower risk of experiencing an asthma-related hospitalization within 1 year and a 44% lower risk of switching or augmenting to another asthma controller medication compared with montelukast. Asthma-related health care expenditures for montelukast patients were dollar 339 higher than for fluticasone propionate users (P < .001). Overall health care expenditures (asthma and nonasthma) were also dollar 1,197 higher in the montelukast group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with montelukast-treated patients, patients treated with low-dose fluticasone propionate had a significantly lower risk of experiencing an asthma-related hospitalization, a lower risk of switching or augmenting with another controller, and significantly lower asthma and total health care costs.

Healthcare utilization among women who undergo surgery for stress urinary incontinence.

This study examined patterns of care for women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data was performed and we identified 12520 women with a diagnosis of SUI and a subset of 3735 women with a surgical procedure code for SUI. For the main types of surgeries, we examined length of stay, pharmaceutical use, complications, and healthcare utilization related to incontinence greater than 6 months after surgery. Approximately 30% of women with a coded SUI diagnosis underwent surgery. Of the initial procedures, 40% were retropubic suspensions and 25% were sling procedures. Almost 4% of women underwent an additional surgery, and 14.1% had claims related to incontinence 6 or more months after the initial procedure. We examined medical care and pharmaceutical use for women undergoing continence surgery. This information may be important to patients and physicians discussing treatment options.