First-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare the survival, toxicity, and quality of life of patients treated with necitumumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin. These agents were investigated in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the first-line setting. METHODS: The systematic review was executed on January 27, 2015, and updated on August 21, 2016, using a pre-specified search strategy. Searches were conducted using PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE, with supplemental searches using the Evidence Based Medicine Reviews and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify RCTs published in English from 1995-2016 and reporting at least one of the primary outcomes [overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, or quality of life] in patients who received first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool, respectively. A Baysian network meta-analysis was performed on the primary outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) were evaluated for the primary analysis; secondary analyses were conducted using median OS data. Planned sensitivity analyses were conducted including reanalysis using a Frequentist approach and limiting analyses to subsets based on clinical and demographic covariates. RESULTS: The systematic literature review resulted in identification of 4,016 unique publications; 40 publications (35 unique trials) were eligible for inclusion. Eight studies connected to a common network for the OS analysis using HR data. The majority of studies were not limited to squamous NSCLC, thus analyzable data were limited to a subset of data within the published trials. Carboplatin + S-1 and necitumumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin were associated with lower HRs for OS versus all other comparators. Nine studies connected to the network for the PFS analysis in which necitumumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin was associated with the lowest HR. Data were not available to analyze toxicity or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results suggest that carboplatin + S-1 and necitumumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin may have value in terms of OS versus other comparators, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies (with few focused exclusively on squamous NSCLC) and wide credible intervals.

Variations in the management of fibromyalgia by physician specialty: rheumatology versus primary care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of physician specialty regarding diagnosis and treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) and assess the clinical status of patients initiating new treatment for FM using data from Real-World Examination of Fibromyalgia: Longitudinal Evaluation of Costs and Treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Outpatients from 58 sites in the United States were enrolled. Data were collected via in-office surveys and telephone interviews. Pairwise comparisons by specialty were made using chi-square, Fisher's exact tests, and Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Physician specialist cohorts included rheumatologists (n=54), primary care physicians (n=25), and a heterogeneous group of physicians practicing pain or physical medicine, psychiatry, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, osteopathy, or an unspecified specialty (n=12). The rheumatologists expressed higher confidence diagnosing FM (4.5 on a five-point scale) than primary care physicians (4.1) (P=0.037). All cohorts strongly agreed that recognizing FM is their responsibility. They agreed that psychological aspects of FM are important, but disagreed that symptoms are psychosomatic. All physician cohorts agreed with a multidisciplinary approach including nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments, although physicians were more confident prescribing medications than alternative therapies. Most patients reported moderate to severe pain, multiple comorbidities, and treatment with several medications and nonpharmacologic therapies. CONCLUSION: Physician practice characteristics, physician attitudes, and FM patient profiles were broadly similar across specialties. The small but significant differences reported by physicians and patients across physician cohorts suggest that despite published guidelines, treatment of FM still contains important variance across specialties.

Real-world treatment patterns and costs in a US Medicare population with metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Despite advances in the treatment of nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), therapeutic choices and overall disease course for squamous NSCLC have remained relatively unchanged over the past several years. We provide a detailed account of current treatment patterns, healthcare use, and survival in real-world clinical settings for metastatic squamous NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic squamous NSCLC diagnosed 2001-2009 were identified and followed through 2010 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. Treatment patterns were descriptively analyzed. Multivariate logistic regressions were estimated to identify predictors of treatment pattern events; generalized linear models were estimated for total all-cause and NSCLC-related costs to assess cost drivers. RESULTS: Of 17,133 patients, 72% received cancer-directed therapy (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or biologic therapy), whereas 28% received only supportive care. Median survival was significantly longer in patients receiving cancer-directed therapy (8 months) than in patients receiving supportive care only (2 months) (P<0.0001). An agent-specific first-line chemotherapy regimen was identified for 91% of the 7700 patients who received chemotherapy. Among these, the most common first-line regimen was carboplatin-paclitaxel combination therapy (46%). Common second-line regimens were gemcitabine monotherapy (16%) and pemetrexed monotherapy (11%). Factors associated with decreased odds of receiving cancer-directed treatment were black versus white race (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82), residence in the West versus South (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81), and metastatic disease at initial diagnosis versus progression to metastatic disease (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that prognosis remains poor for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC, even among those receiving treatment, but particularly for patients limited to supportive care only, highlighting the continuing unmet medical need in this population. Additionally, our analysis indicates that selections for second-line and third-line chemotherapies are not necessarily consistent with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study protocol: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in first-line treatment of squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a high unmet need for effective treatments for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Eli Lilly and Company is conducting a phase III, randomized, multicenter, open-label study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin plus necitumumab (GC + N) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) for the first-line treatment of patients with stage IV squamous NSCLC. Given GC is not the only treatment commonly used for the treatment of squamous NSCLC, this study was designed to compare the survival, toxicity, and quality of life outcomes of current treatment strategies for squamous NSCLC in the first-line setting. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis (including indirect comparisons) of treatments used in squamous NSCLC will be conducted to assess the clinical efficacy (overall and progression-free survival), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety (grade 3-4 toxicity) of GC + N compared to other treatments used in squamous NSCLC. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines will be followed for all aspects of this study. A systematic literature review will be conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating chemotherapy treatment in first-line NSCLC. Eligible articles will be restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC cancer patients that report outcome data (survival, toxicity, or quality of life) for patients with squamous histology. Following data extraction and validation, data consistency and study heterogeneity will be assessed. A network meta-analysis will be conducted based on the available hazard ratios for overall and progression-free survival, odds ratios for published toxicity data, and mean difference of HRQoL scales. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This is a presentation of the study protocol only. Results and conclusions are pending completion of this study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014008968.

Diagnosis, treatment, and burden of illness among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Europe.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively address the burden of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Europe (Germany, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands), to describe adult experience leading to diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, and to compare those findings with results from the US. SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from an international web-based survey of adults from Europe and the US. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, work productivity/activity impairments, and health care utilization of adults reporting an ADHD diagnosis (n=431) and a similar number of adults without ADHD (n=449) were compared. Respondents' experiences with the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD and the perceived effects of the condition on psychosocial functioning were assessed. In addition, multivariate regression analyses were performed to compare the burden of ADHD between the two regions. RESULTS: Adults with ADHD in both regions were generally less likely to be married, employed, or rate their health as good/very good/excellent and were more likely to smoke, have experienced alcoholism, have other mental health conditions, have work productivity/activity impairments, and use health care resources. Although the specialties of health care professionals consulted prior to diagnosis were similar between the two regions, there was a notable difference in the length of time it took to receive a first ADHD diagnosis. Only 55% of European respondents received a diagnosis within 6 months of their first physician consultation regarding their ADHD symptoms, compared to 90% in the US. The results of regression analyses confirmed a greater impact of ADHD on psychosocial functioning, work productivity impairments, and the total number of provider visits in Europe. CONCLUSION: The results revealed a significant impact of ADHD on adults over a range of outcomes, including social, family, and work relationships, health-related work productivity impairment, and health care resource use, with a generally greater burden of illness among European study participants than those from the US.

Duloxetine treatment adherence across mental health and chronic pain conditions.

PURPOSE: This study applied a uniform methodology for measuring and comparing duloxetine adherence in the treatment of multiple chronic medical conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study patients 18-64 years of age initiating duloxetine therapy during 2008 were identified from a large managed care database. The study was restricted to patients with continuous health plan eligibility for 12 months pre- and post-duloxetine initiation. Study patients had ≥1 medical claim with an inpatient or outpatient diagnosis of one (and only one) of the following conditions: major depressive disorder (MDD); generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); fibromyalgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain; or chronic musculoskeletal pain, as established in studies in patients with osteoarthritis and chronic lower back pain (CLBP). Patients initiating duloxetine who had two or more of the six studied conditions were not included in this study, thereby avoiding the need to differentiate between primary and secondary diagnoses from the claims records. Adherence rate was defined as the percentage of patients with a 365-day medication possession ratio ≥0.8. RESULTS: A total of 20,490 patients initiated duloxetine treatment during 2008 with a diagnosis of one of the studied conditions during the study period. The adherence rate in our sample was 34.6% and was highest among patients with MDD (37.3%) and lowest for patients with CLBP (29.9%). In general, adherence among patients with MDD and GAD was greater than among those with a chronic pain condition. CONCLUSION: Adherence among newly initiated duloxetine patients varied modestly across the medical conditions for which it was used. After adjusting for potential confounders, differences between the mental conditions (MDD and GAD) and the chronic pain conditions (CLBP, osteoarthritis, and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain) were statistically significant. These results may be useful in the determination of expectations of adherence, and how it may differ for each of the conditions studied.

Longitudinal analysis of healthcare costs: a case study of patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and apply a longitudinal model that adjusts for pre-treatment covariates to examine the trajectory of healthcare costs in duloxetine patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Retrospective healthcare cost data from Thomson Reuters Marketscan® Database included 10,987 patients with MDD, aged 18-64, receiving duloxetine at low (<60 mg/day), standard (60 mg/day), or high (>60 mg/day) initial doses. A linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures used dose, month, and dose*month as fixed effects and patient (dose) as a random effect, and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, body system disorders, and prior medication history. Model goodness-of-fit was evaluated with R(2). Rates of change (slopes) were estimated from the fitted model and differences in the cost trajectory among dosing cohorts were tested using the F-test. Bootstrapping and propensity score (PS) stratification were conducted to provide sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Main effects and covariates were all significant (p < 0.05). Adjustment by pre-treatment covariates greatly improved the model fit (R(2 )= 0.43). The model revealed a significant increase in healthcare costs in the 6 months preceding and a significant decrease in the 6 months following duloxetine initiation for each initial dose cohort and the overall cohort (p < 0.05). In both the pre- and post-treatment periods, the high initial-dose cohort had higher healthcare costs than standard or low initial-dose cohorts (p < 0.05). Bootstrapping and PS stratification confirmed these test results. LIMITATIONS: The analyses performed here were based on non-randomized, observational data, and thus subject to potential biases due to unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal models, compared with conventional mean-based methods, provide better opportunities to assess changes in cost trajectory patterns around the time of changes in medical treatment. In insured patients with MDD started on duloxetine, healthcare costs increased before duloxetine initiation, perhaps signaling a clinical deterioration that led to a change in treatment strategy. Healthcare costs then decreased following duloxetine initiation.

Adherence and persistence with duloxetine and hospital utilization in patients with major depressive disorder.

The aim of this study was to examine the association between duloxetine adherence/persistence and hospital utilization. In a managed care claims database, 8521 patients with a major depressive disorder diagnosis were initiated on duloxetine in 2006. Patients had no active duloxetine prescription for 6 months before initiation and had continuous enrollment for 12 months preinitiation and postinitiation. Adherence was defined as medication possession ratio of 0.8 or more, and persistence was defined as the duration of therapy without exceeding a 30-day gap. Logistic regression and negative binominal regression were conducted. Overall, 55.8% of patients were adherent and the average duration of duloxetine therapy was 118.4 days within 6 months after initiation. Adherent patients had significantly lower rates of hospitalization (19.7 vs. 23.4%, P<0.0001) and emergency room visits (30.6 vs. 36.9%, P<0.0001) than nonadherent patients. Hospitalization and emergency room visits were significantly reduced with treatment persistence (P<0.0001). After adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and prior hospitalization, adherence was associated with reduced hospitalization (odds ratio=0.86) and emergency room visits (odds ratio=0.80). Patients on duloxetine of more than 90 days, compared with less than 31 days, were 16% less likely to be hospitalized and 22% less likely to have emergency room visits. Duloxetine adherence and persistence appear to be associated with reduced hospital utilization in the 1-year follow-up period.

Initial duloxetine prescription dose and treatment adherence and persistence in patients with major depressive disorder.

Adherence and persistence with medication therapy are important in the management of major depressive disorder. This study examined the association between initial prescription dosage of duloxetine and its adherence and persistence. In a large commercial managed-care claims database, 6132 patients with major depressive disorder were initiated on duloxetine between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2006 at low dose (<60 mg/day, n=1989), mid dose (60 mg/day, n=3733), or high dose (>60 mg/day, n=410). Adherence was defined as medication possession ratio more than or equal to 0.8, and persistence was defined as the length of therapy without exceeding a 15-day gap. Over a 6-month period after duloxetine initiation, mid-dose initiated patients had a higher adherence rate (42.2%) than low-dose (35.6%, P<0.001) or high-dose initiated patients (36.1%, P<0.001). Mid-dose duloxetine-initiated patients stayed significantly longer with the medication (107.3 days) compared with low-dose (95.8 days, P<0.01) or high-dose patients (95.4 days, P<0.01). After adjustment for baseline demographics, comorbid conditions, and prior medications, mid-dose initiated patients remained to have better adherence and longer persistence than low-dose or high-dose initiators. The findings suggest that patients initiated with a dose of 60 mg/day of duloxetine seem to be more adherent to and persistent with the medication than those initiated with less or more than 60 mg/day.

Functional and psychosocial impairment in adults with undiagnosed ADHD.

BACKGROUND: Identify a group of adults with 'undiagnosed' attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and compare their personal and family medical histories, psychosocial profiles, functional impairment and quality of life with non-ADHD controls. Additionally, compare adults with undiagnosed and diagnosed ADHD to investigate possible reasons why the undiagnosed avoid clinical detection. METHOD: ICD-9 codes for ADHD in administrative claims records and responses to a telephone-administered adult ADHD screener [the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS)] were used to classify approximately 21000 members of two large managed health-care plans as 'undiagnosed' (no coded diagnosis; ASRS positive) or 'non-ADHD' controls (no coded diagnosis; ASRS negative). Patients identified as 'undiagnosed' ADHD were compared with samples of non-ADHD controls and 'diagnosed' ADHD patients (ICD-9 coded ADHD diagnoses) on the basis of demographics, socio-economic status, past and present mental health conditions, and self-reported functional and psychosocial impairment and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 752 'undiagnosed' ADHD subjects, 199 'non-ADHD' controls and 198 'diagnosed' ADHD subjects completed a telephone interview. Overall, the 'undiagnosed' ADHD cohort demonstrated higher rates of co-morbid illness and greater functional impairment than 'non-ADHD' controls, including significantly higher rates of current depression, and problem drinking, lower educational attainment, and greater emotional and interpersonal difficulties. 'Undiagnosed' ADHD subjects reported a different racial composition and lower educational attainment than 'diagnosed' ADHD subjects. CONCLUSION: Individuals with 'undiagnosed' ADHD manifest significantly greater functional and psychosocial impairment than those screening negative for the disorder, suggesting that ADHD poses a serious burden to adults even when clinically unrecognized.

Resource use among patients with diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, or diabetes with depression.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is often associated with complications and comorbidities. The purpose of this research is to compare medical resources used by patients with the following diagnoses: diabetes mellitus (DM), diabetic neuropathy (DN), and diabetes mellitus combined with comorbid depression (DD). METHODS: Adult patients who were diagnosed with DM, DN, or DD were included in the study. There were 55,972 patients in the DM cohort, 2,146 in the DN, and 2,379 in the DD. P values for comparisons between the three mutually exclusive cohorts were conducted using the Tukey-Kramer method. Cost comparisons among the cohorts were conducted using a stepwise multivariate regression that controlled for patient characteristics and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Individuals in the DM or DN cohorts were generally more likely to use antidiabetic medications than patients in the DD group. Those diagnosed with DN or DD generally used more pain medications than individuals in the DM cohort. The DM cohort had significantly lower diabetes-related total medical costs ($1,297 v $5,125, p < 0.0001) and lower total medical costs ($4,819 v $24,765, p < 0.0001) than the DN cohort. The DM cohort also had significantly lower diabetes-related total medical costs ($1,297 v $3,264, p < 0.0001) as well as significantly lower total medical costs ($4,819 v $19,298, p < 0.0001) than the DD cohort. CONCLUSION: Results from this study indicated significant differences in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use among individuals diagnosed with DM, DN, or DD. These differences translated into significant cost differences. Patients diagnosed with DN or DD had higher diabetes-related costs than patients diagnosed with DM.