Comparing COPD treatment: nebulizer, metered dose inhaler, and concomitant therapy.

PURPOSE: Patients using albuterol and ipratropium for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can use either nebulizers or metered dose inhalers. This study compared the 2 methods of delivering medication and the concomitant use of both nebulizer and inhaler, with respect to health-related quality of life, patient symptoms, and efficacy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients over 50 years old with COPD were randomized into 3 groups: nebulizer, inhaler, or concomitant treatment. Quality of life was assessed using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire at baseline, and at 6 and 12 weeks. Other efficacy measurements at these time-points included pre- and post-dose forced expired volume in 1 second (FEV1). Symptom scores and peak flow measurements were recorded in patient diaries. RESULTS: Of 140 patients enrolled, 126 completed at least one post-baseline assessment. At week 6, both groups using a nebulizer achieved statistically significant improvements from baseline in questionnaire symptoms, and the concomitant treatment group had clinically and statistically significant improvement in total questionnaire score. At week 12, the concomitant group still maintained significant improvement in symptom sub-scores. The 3 groups showed little change over time in peak flow or FEV1, with no significant difference among groups. Both groups using a nebulizer had significant improvement over time in diary symptom scores, although differences between groups were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients using combined nebulizer therapy morning and night with mid-day inhaler use had the most statistically significant improvements in quality of life indices. This concomitant regimen provides the additional symptom relief offered by a nebulizer with the convenience of an inhaler when patients are away from home.

The impact of managed eye care on use of vision services, vision costs, and patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the impact of introducing a managed vision benefit program on the use and costs of vision services in a managed care setting and also to assess satisfaction with those services after the program was introduced. METHODS: Utilization and costs were compared for two groups of patients. The comparison group (n = 36,168) included all patients enrolled for 18 months before implementation of the managed eye-care plan. The study group (n = 23,816) included those enrolled for 18 months following its implementation. Medical claims, survey, and administrative data were used to evaluate study outcomes. RESULTS: The overall use of vision care was similar before and after the introduction of the managed eye-care programs, with 24% of each group receiving at least one vision service during the 18-month period. Nevertheless, an increase in the use of routine eye-care services and a decrease in medical eye-care services were observed following program implementation. The overall cost of providing eye-care services to patients decreased from 1.86 dollars to 1.36 dollars per member per month after the program started, largely owing to a reduction in spending associated with medical eye-care services. More than 90% of patients surveyed were satisfied with their vision care provided by the program. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that introducing routine and medical managed eye-care programs in a managed care setting allows for a reduction in medical costs while maintaining access to care and patient satisfaction.

Functional status and somatization as predictors of medical offset in anxious and depressed patients.

OBJECTIVE: Certain anxious/depressed primary care patients decrease medical utilization after mental health treatment. Previous research has established demo-graphic and medical comorbidities as distinguishing these patients. We asked whether characteristics such as symptom severity, somatization, or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could also distinguish patients who reduce or increase primary care utilization after mental health care. METHODS: Primary care patients in a mixed-model HMO were screened for untreated anxiety with and without depression, using the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) and medical records abstractions, and also for HRQoL (SF-36). We identified 165 symptomatic patients who subsequently received mental health treatment and then defined two subgroups: 1) offset patients (reduced medical utilization the year after initiation of mental health treatment) (N=97); and 2) no-offset patients (increased utilization) (N =68). RESULTS: Three HRQoL domains (general health perceptions, physical functioning, and role functioning- physical) predicted increased offset savings in the year after initiation of mental health treatment. Each point of improved functioning in these domains was associated with 4 dollars to 10 dollars of additional offset savings. Somatization-related comorbidities were predictive of greater additional costs (230 dollars). CONCLUSION: Using models to predict individual patient costs, we found that HRQoL and somatic comorbidities did not predict by anxiety/depression symptom severity or medical comorbidities, but by increasing or decreasing utilization after mental health care. Patients with higher functioning levels and no somatic comorbidities were most likely to reduce utilization. These findings support growing evidence for the need of inclusion of reliable indicators of somatization and patients' functioning in offset research and inpatient care.

Prospective study designs in outcomes research: the case of migraine.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including resource utilisation, productivity and quality of life, are important outcomes in the field of migraine. Clinical trials have begun to incorporate PROs; however, not all research questions can be answered fully within the framework of a clinical trial design. Other prospective designs, including effectiveness trials, observational studies, and study hybrids may be used to answer many of the different research questions related to PROs. This paper reviews prospective study designs, their strengths and weaknesses, and examples of their application in migraine health-outcomes research. Guidance is provided for researchers in the selection of prospective research designs and the incorporation of PROs-research objectives.