[Epidemiology and treatment of adult patients with atopic dermatitis : Analysis of longitudinal data of the statutory health insurance scheme]. / Epidemiologie und Therapie von erwachsenen Patienten mit atopischer Dermatitis : Analyse von Längsschnittdaten der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung.

BACKGROUND: The goal was to report incidence, prevalence, and treatment patterns in adult atopic dermatitis (AD) patients in the German statutory health insurance system. PATIENT AND METHODS: Anonymized claims data were evaluated at patient level for 3.3 million persons insured by six different statutory health insurance companies (SHI). Patients for whom the ICD-10 diagnosis code L20 (AD) was applied at least twice were analyzed and data on prescription patterns for AD were reported for the years 2011-2015. RESULTS: AD prevalence in adults was 1.6-1.9% in 2012-2015. Annual incidence was 0.28%. In Q3/Q4 2015, 44.2% of the adult population with AD diagnosis by a dermatologist received prescriptions for AD medications: 1.6% low-potency topical glucocorticoids (without previous prescription of systemic drugs), 46.9% moderate or high-potency topical glucocorticoids or topical calcineurin inhibitors, 23.9% current systemic therapy (systemic glucocorticoids, ciclosporin, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil) and 27.6% systemic therapy in the past. CONCLUSIONS: The AD prevalence estimate was in the range of previous reports (1.35-4%) that used different methodologies. Based on treatment proxy, it appeared that almost more than half of AD patients treated with prescription ready-to-use drugs had a severe form of AD which required treatment with systemic drugs.

Utilization of lipid-modifying therapy and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in patients at high and very-high cardiovascular risk: Real-world evidence from Germany.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a causal risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) events. European guidelines recommend reducing LDL-C as the primary lipid target to reduce CV risk, using lifestyle modifications and lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Many European patients do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C levels. The present database analysis aimed to assess LLT treatment patterns and LDL-C threshold attainment in Germany in a large, real-world cohort of patients. METHODS: Patients from the Cegedim Longitudinal Practice Database in Germany who met selection criteria were included: (a) LDL-C measurement in 2013; (b) ≥20 years of age; (c) high or very-high CV risk conditions: recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), other coronary heart disease (CHD), ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD]) or diabetes mellitus (DM) (non-ASCVD). LDL-C threshold attainment was assessed based on LDL-C targets from 2011 European guidelines. RESULTS: 42,767 patients met the inclusion criteria; 35% received current statin treatment, and 30% achieved guideline-recommended LDL-C targets. Attainment of LDL-C goals among ASCVD hierarchical categories was 46.7% for recent ACS, 35.8% for ischemic stroke, 34.9% for other CHD, and 26.9% for PAD. Among patients in the non-ASCVD group with DM, 23.6% achieved LDL-C goals. Similar results were observed when patients were grouped by prevalence (patients assigned to every risk group for which they qualified). CONCLUSIONS: In this high/very-high CV risk population in Germany, statin utilization was low; suggesting that LLTs are not prescribed as per European guidelines. These results highlight the need to increase LLT use among high-risk patients.

Effectiveness and safety of phentolamine mesylate in routine dental care.

BACKGROUND: Phentolamine mesylate (PM) is widely used to reverse local anesthesia after dental procedures. Limited knowledge is available regarding effectiveness and safety in routine dental practice. METHODS: The authors conducted 2 national, prospective, noninterventional, postauthorization effectiveness studies (OraVerse Post-Authorization Efficacy Study [ORAPAES] controlled, OraVerse Non-Interventional Study [ORANIS] uncontrolled) in patients receiving a local anesthetic as part of their dental treatment. They investigated time to recovery of normal sensation and function and the frequency of adverse events (AEs). The authors used Kaplan-Meier methods to analyze times to recovery; in ORAPAES, they used hazard ratios based on Cox models using the control group as a reference. RESULTS: In ORAPAES (n = 856), PM reduced the time to recovery of normal sensation and function with a difference in the median time of 70 and 79 minutes, respectively, with similar results observed in ORANIS (n = 445). In ORAPAES, patients in the PM group had, at any time point, a 2.77-fold higher chance of recovery to normal sensation (hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.35-3.26; P < .001) and for normal function 2.94-fold higher chance of recovery to normal sensation (95% CI, 2.49-3.47; P < .001) than in the control group. The observed incidence of AEs with PM treatment was 8.4% in ORAPAES (95% CI, 6.2-10.9) and 9.7% (95% CI, 7.1-12.7) in ORANIS. No serious AEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: PM substantially reduced the time to recovery of normal sensation and function after local anesthesia in routine dental treatment. The results confirm the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of PM used in patients with routine dental conditions in Germany, and that PM augments the safety of dental treatments. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors determined that PM is well suited to reverse local anesthesia after routine dental procedures.

Treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life between type 2 diabetes patients initiating long- vs. intermediate-acting basal insulin therapy in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents--a randomized, prospective, crossover, open clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological and clinical differences between insulin glargine and NPH insulin may translate into differences in patient reported outcomes, but existing data are equivocal. METHODS: In this 48-week, open-label, randomized, multi-center, crossover phase IV trial, insulin naïve type 2 diabetes patients with blood glucose not at target on oral hypoglycemic agents had basal insulin added to their treatment regimen. A total of 343 patients were randomized to either receive insulin glargine (n = 176; sequence A) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (n = 167; sequence B) in period 1 (weeks 1-24) and vice versa in period 2 (weeks 25-48). The primary objective was to assess patient reported outcomes using a composite Diabetes Related Quality of Life (DRQoL) score based on an unweighted Insulin Treatment Experience Questionnaire (ITEQ) score, a Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire score, and the mental health score in the Short Form (SF)-12® Health Survey, analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Patients (mean age 62.3 ± 9.0; 39.5 % female) had a mean diabetes duration of 9.6 ± 5.9 years, a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.15 ± 0.72 %, and a mean fasting blood glucose (FBG) level of 9.37 ± 2.19 mmol/L. A total of 229 patients were available for primary endpoint evaluation (modified intention to treat population). Combining all data from both periods for each insulin treatment, on a 0-100 scale, the mean DRQoL score was 69.6 (±9.04) with insulin glargine and 70.0 (±9.40) with NPH insulin. Neither an effect of treatment with insulin glargine vs NPH insulin (p = 0.31) nor a period effect (p = 0.96), nor a sequence effect (p = 0.76) was observed using ANCOVA. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that in a patient population with sub-optimal glycemic control at baseline, and a low target achievement rate together with a low rate of hypoglycemia, differences in the patient reported outcomes evaluated in this study were negligible between insulin glargine and NPH insulin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00941369.

Indirect comparison of lixisenatide versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin as add-on to metformin and sulphonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: There is currently a lack of evidence from direct comparisons of treatment outcomes with lixisenatide versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with suboptimal glycaemic control with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Hence, the current analysis indirectly compared available evidence on the risk of hypoglycaemia and weight change between lixisenatide and NPH-insulin based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with exenatide, insulin glargine and placebo as common references. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical registries identified English- and German-language articles published from January 1980 to October 2012 reporting data from RCTs. Only publications of trials that reported outcomes from 24 to 30 weeks comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or basal insulin versus another antidiabetic agent or placebo were included. Hypoglycaemia, patients at glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) target and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) were treated as binary variables, with risk ratios and odds ratios (ORs) calculated. HbA1c and body weight were treated as continuous variables with difference in mean change from baseline (MD) calculated. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models and indirect comparisons were performed according to Bucher's method. RESULTS: Seven RCTs (n=3,301 patients) comparing the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide, exenatide, insulin glargine and NPH-insulin with different antidiabetic treatments in adult patients with T2DM were included in the final analysis. In the adjusted indirect comparison, there was a significant difference in symptomatic hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = [0.17, 0.85]) and in confirmed hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = [0.22, 0.96]) favouring lixisenatide over NPH-insulin and comparable changes in HbA1c from baseline (MD = 0.07%; 95% CI = [-0.26%, 0.41%]). In contrast to NPH-insulin, there was a significant reduction in body weight with lixisenatide (MD = -3.62 kg; 95% CI = [-5.86 kg, -1.38 kg]) at study completion. The number of discontinuations due to AEs numerically favoured NPH-insulin over lixisenatide (OR = 2.64; 95% CI = [0.25, 27.96]), with a broad confidence interval. CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide treatment was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and a greater weight loss compared with NPH-insulin. Glycaemic control with lixisenatide treatment was comparable with NPH-insulin. These data suggest that lixisenatide is a beneficial treatment option for T2DM patients with inadequate glycaemic control on OADs, and is associated with reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain.

Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland.

Early benefit assessment in Germany under the legislative framework of AMNOG (Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz) requires direct comparisons of the new drug with appropriate comparators determined by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). In case no head-to-head studies are available for direct comparisons, the submission of indirect comparisons is permitted to assess the additional benefit of the new drug. However, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) states a clear preference for head-to-head trials and defines strict requirements for indirect comparisons to be considered in the benefit assessment. Similar requirements also exist in other countries with mandatory health technology assessments (HTA), like France, England and Scotland. Our evaluation shows that a comparison of the different HTA regarding indirect comparisons is difficult. Overall, external preconditions and methodological requirements are demanding and hardly to fulfill by pharmaceutical companies for implementation of indirect comparisons in early benefit assessment. The determination of the appropriate comparators, outcomes, patient subgroups and study choice are the main target within indirect comparisons for the future. To compare and assess submitted indirect comparisons it would be desirable that a transparent process was established, including the mandatory publication of HTA-reports within Europe and international guidelines, accepted by a large number of HTA-agencies.

Quality assurance in non-interventional studies.

Nowadays, drug research and surveillance after authorisation becomes more and more important for several reasons. Non-interventional studies (NIS) investigate various aspects of drug use including efficacy and safety under real life conditions. Such kind of health services research should be on a high scientific, methodological and organisational level. Therefore accompanying measures to improve or to keep the quality are highly recommended. The aim of quality management is: first to avoid bias of results by using an appropriate study design and an adequate data analysis, second to assure authenticity, completeness and validity of the data and third to identify and resolve deficiencies at an early stage. Basic principles are laid down in corresponding guidelines and recommendations of authorities, institutes and societies. Various guidelines for good epidemiological practice (GEP) were published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and international and regional societies for epidemiology. In addition in Germany the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) together with the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) and the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA) have published respectively recommendations dealing with quality aspects of non-interventional observational studies. Key points are the advanced publishing of information about the project, developing of a study plan/protocol containing the scientific objectives, a sample size justification and a description of the planned analyses and the publishing of a summary of the results timely after completion of the study. The quality of the data can be improved by using standardized case report forms (CRF) and the CRF should be reviewed and tested before start of study by some participants. A source data verification (SDV) should be performed in randomly selected centres - in between 2% and 5% of the centres depending on the number of participating centres. Before start of statistical analysis a statistical analysis plan (SAP) should be created. The use of standardized tables and figures is highly recommended. The basis of the report writing should be the STROBE-statement "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology Initiative" containing a checklist of 22 points to be covered in the report. The development of own standard operating procedures (SOP) describing the processes during planning, conduct and evaluation of a non-interventional study as well as the quality management and the regular training of all involved people is also highly recommended. All accompanying measures to improve or to keep the quality of the NIS should not violate the concept of non-intervention.

Systemic risk score evaluation in ischemic stroke patients (SCALA): a prospective cross sectional study in 85 German stroke units.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stratification of patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or ischemic stroke (IS) by risk of recurrent stroke can contribute to optimized secondary prevention. We therefore aimed to assess cardiovascular risk factor profiles of consecutive patients hospitalized with TIA/IS to stratify the risk of recurrent stroke according to the Essen Stroke Risk Score (ESRS) and of future cardiovascular events according to the ankle brachial index (ABI) as a marker of generalized atherosclerosis METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational study, 85 neurological stroke units throughout Germany documented cardiovascular risk factor profiles of 10 consecutive TIA/IS patients on standardized questionnaires. Screening for PAD was done with Doppler ultrasonography to calculate the ABI. RESULTS: A total of 852 patients (57% men) with a mean age of 67+/-12.4 years were included of whom 82.9 % had IS. The median National Institutes of Health stroke sum score was 4 (TIA: 1). Arterial hypertension was reported in 71%, diabetes mellitus in 26%, clinical PAD in 10%, and an ABI < or = 0.9 in 51%. An ESRS > or = 3 was observed in 58%, which in two previous retrospective analyses corresponded to a recurrent stroke risk of > or = 4%/year. The correlation between the ESRS and the ABI was low (r = 0.21). CONCLUSION: A high proportion of patients had asymptomatic atherosclerotic disease and a considerable risk of recurrent stroke according to the ABI and ESRS category. The prognostic accuracy as well as the potential benefit of various risk stratification scores in secondary stroke prevention require validation in a larger prospective study.