Using electronic health records to estimate the prevalence of agitation in Alzheimer disease/dementia.

BACKGROUND: Agitation is a common neuropsychiatric symptom of Alzheimer disease (AD). Data are scarce regarding agitation prevalence among community-dwelling patients with AD. OBJECTIVE: To estimate agitation prevalence in a sample of US patients with AD/dementia overall and by AD/dementia disease severity, using data from electronic health records (EHR). METHODS: This retrospective database study examined community-dwelling patients with ≥1 EHR record indicating AD/dementia from January 2008 to June 2015 and no evidence of non-Alzheimer dementia during the 12-month preindex and postindex periods. Agitation was identified using diagnosis codes for dementia with behavioral disturbance and EHR abstracted notes records indicating agitation symptoms compiled from the International Psychogeriatric Association provisional consensus definition. RESULTS: Of 320 886 eligible patients (mean age, 76.4 y, 64.7% female), 143 160 (44.6%) had evidence of agitation during the observation period. Less than 5% of patients with agitation had a diagnosis code for behavioral disturbance. The most prevalent symptom categories among patients with agitation, preindex and postindex, were agitation (31.4% and 41.3%), falling (22.6% and 21.7%), and restlessness (18.3% and 23.3%). Among the 78 827 patients (24.6%) with known AD/dementia severity, agitation prevalence was 61.3%. Agitation during the observation period was most prevalent for moderate-to-severe and severe AD/dementia (74.6% and 68.3%, respectively) and lowest for mild AD/dementia (56.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Agitation prevalence was 44.6% overall and 61.3% among patients with staged AD/dementia. Behavioral disturbance appeared to be underdiagnosed. While agitation has previously been shown to be highly prevalent in the long-term care setting, this study indicates that it is also common among community-dwelling patients.

The challenges of assessing effectiveness of lacosamide using electronic medical record databases.

PURPOSE: Electronic health record (EHR) databases are a potential source for conducting research to generate real world evidence on patient outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of using EHR data to assess seizure outcomes in patients treated with lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted using the Optum clinical EHR database. The study sample comprised patients ≥17 years of age with epilepsy or seizures and treated with LCM monotherapy between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013. Structured and unstructured data from prescribed medication and abstracted physician note records were used to identify patients with epilepsy treated with LCM monotherapy and measure seizure frequency outcomes. The index date was the first date of LCM monotherapy, with a 6-month baseline period. Patients were observed for up to 12 months beginning on the index date (follow-up period). The EHR data were not sufficient to compute days supply and explicit duration of LCM and other antiepileptic drug (AED) therapies; therefore, LCM monotherapy was estimated from prescription dates of AEDs. Outcomes were change in seizures per month or change in seizure frequency category from baseline to follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics and study outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 10,988 patients with at least one LCM prescription were identified during the study period, 470 of whom met all the selection criteria and were included in the study sample. Although many patients had abstracted physician note records that referred to their seizures, only 3.2% of the patients had seizure frequency information that could be used to quantify the number of seizures per month in both the baseline and follow-up periods; thus, this information could not be used to assess the effectiveness of LCM monotherapy on seizure outcomes. CONCLUSION: Lacosamide monotherapy effectiveness was not estimated because the EHR prescription record data did not have sufficient information on days supply. Additionally, most patients' records did not contain adequate information to allow for evaluation of quantitative changes in seizure frequency based on the number of seizures per month. More studies are needed to validate these study findings.

Effect of 2013 ACC/AHA Blood Cholesterol Guidelines on Statin Treatment Patterns and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: Preceding release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) cholesterol guidelines, prescribers aimed for specific low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The 2013 guidelines changed this focus to treating patients with appropriate statin intensity given their ASCVD risk. We examined statin use and LDL-C levels before and after the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines in patients with clinical ASCVD as defined in the guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult commercial and Medicare Advantage health plan enrollees in the Optum Research Database. Patients had ≥1 claim with a diagnosis of clinical ASCVD between November 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014 and were continuously enrolled 6 months before (baseline) and 7 months after (follow-up) the first ASCVD visit. Patients were assigned to monthly cohorts based on ASCVD event month. Statin use and intensity were measured at baseline and first month of follow-up. LDL-C changes were assessed using ordinary least squares regression. For 90 287 patients, mean (SD) age was 68 (12) years; 50% were female; and 30% had commercial insurance. Statin use remained consistent before and after guidelines (32% and 31%, respectively). Of patients receiving statins, high-intensity use increased by 4 percentage points 1 year after guidelines (P<0.001). Mean LDL-C levels were 2.4 mmol/L (94 mg/dL) both pre- and postguidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Statin use and mean monthly LDL-C before and after the guidelines remained largely unchanged; statin intensity increased modestly. More effort may be needed to increase guideline understanding and adherence to improve treatment of high-risk patients.

Impact of osteoporosis on high-cost chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of osteoporosis on health care costs for patients with chronic disease (CD): cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), depression, diabetes mellitus (DM), or two or more of these CDs. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included commercially insured or Medicare Advantage male and female members aged 50 years or older with medical and pharmacy benefits who had evidence of osteoporosis and/or one of the CDs during the identification period (January 1, 2007, to October 31, 2009). Cohorts were defined by the presence or absence of osteoporosis and CD (osteoporosis ONLY, CD ONLY, and CD plus osteoporosis) and, for osteoporosis cohorts, by incident (recent diagnosis) or prevalent osteoporosis (long-standing). Primary outcome was total health care costs during 1-year follow-up. Costs, adjusted for baseline characteristics, were analyzed with a generalized linear model with log link and gamma distribution. RESULTS: Of the 494,160 patients, the majority had evidence of CD with or without osteoporosis: CVD (54%), two or more CDs (24%), DM (8%), depression (4%), COPD (1%); 9% had osteoporosis ONLY. The range of actual mean costs was as follows: CD ONLY, $8,377 (CVD) to $12,801 (two or more CDs); CD plus incident osteoporosis, $15,696 (CVD) to $23,860 (two or more CDs); CD plus prevalent osteoporosis, $10,038 (CVD) to $17,997 (two or more CDs). Compared with CD ONLY, baseline-adjusted costs were 66% (two or more CDs) to 91% (DM) higher for CD plus incident osteoporosis and 13% (CVD) to 23% (depression) higher for CD plus prevalent osteoporosis (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The burden of osteoporosis in patients with CD is significant, particularly for patients with newly diagnosed osteoporosis.