Search

Objective: To assess the impact of the HealthPrize RespiPoints™ program on treatment adherence and persistence in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, program participants and nonparticipants receiving tiotropium bromide (TIO) or TIO and olodaterol between 1 January 2015–31 March 2020 were propensity score matched (PSM), from the linked database of the HealthPrize patient list and IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus. Treatment adherence, persistence, healthcare resource utilization, and costs were compared. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the odds of adherence (≥80% proportion of days covered [PDC]), adjusted risk of discontinuation, and adjusted total healthcare costs. Results: Program participants (n = 262) demonstrated a 44% greater adherence during followup than nonparticipants (n = 262) (mean [standard deviation] PDC: 0.72 [0.27] vs 0.50 [0.36], p < 0.0001). Participants had higher odds of adherence vs nonparticipants (adjusted odds ratio: 2.51; 95% confidence interval: 1.72–3.66, p < 0.0001) and a lower percentage of participants discontinued their index medication (19.85% vs 33.59%, p = 0.0004). Fewer participants were hospitalized during follow-up (13.74% vs 17.56%, p = 0.23); adjusted total medical costs were 24% lower (p = 0.08). Higher pharmacy costs partially offset lower healthcare costs. Conclusions: Program participants showed improved COPD medication adherence and persistence compared to nonparticipants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In preclinical models, benfotiamine efficiently ameliorates the clinical and biological pathologies that define Alzheimer's disease (AD) including impaired cognition, amyloid-β plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, diminished glucose metabolism, oxidative stress, increased advanced glycation end products (AGE), and inflammation.Objective: To collect preliminary data on feasibility, safety, and efficacy in individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) or mild dementia due to AD in a placebo-controlled trial of benfotiamine.Methods: A twelve-month treatment with benfotiamine tested whether clinical decline would be delayed in the benfotiamine group compared to the placebo group. The primary clinical outcome was the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). Secondary outcomes were the clinical dementia rating (CDR) score and fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake, measured with brain positron emission tomography (PET). Blood AGE were examined as an exploratory outcome.Results: Participants were treated with benfotiamine (34) or placebo (36). Benfotiamine treatment was safe. The increase in ADAS-Cog was 43% lower in the benfotiamine group than in the placebo group, indicating less cognitive decline, and this effect was nearly statistically significant (p = 0.125). Worsening in CDR was 77% lower (p = 0.034) in the benfotiamine group compared to the placebo group, and this effect was stronger in the APOEɛ4 non-carriers. Benfotiamine significantly reduced increases in AGE (p = 0.044), and this effect was stronger in the APOEɛ4 non-carriers. Exploratory analysis derivation of an FDG PET pattern score showed a treatment effect at one year (p = 0.002).Conclusion: Oral benfotiamine is safe and potentially efficacious in improving cognitive outcomes among persons with MCI and mild AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare all‐cause healthcare costs among non‐valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients who switched from warfarin to novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC). Methods: Adult NVAF patients who switched from warfarin to dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban were identified in MarketScan claims databases between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2015. Patients were continuously enrolled for 12 months before the first NOAC claim and followed for 12 months or until medication switch, discontinuation, inpatient death or 12/31/2016. Dabigatran patients were matched 1 : 1 separately to rivaroxaban and apixaban. All‐cause costs were reported as per‐patient‐per‐month (PPPM) in 2017 US dollars. Key findings: A total of 8679 and 5761 dabigatran switchers were matched to rivaroxaban and apixaban switchers respectively (mean age 73–74 years; mean CCI 1.8–2.0). Compared with rivaroxaban, dabigatran switchers had significantly lower PPPM mean outpatient (OP) ($1265 versus $1587, P < 0.001), emergency department (ED, $67 versus $95, P < 0.001), OP office ($114 versus $119, P = 0.003), other OP services ($1085 versus $1373, P < 0.001) and OP pharmacy costs ($624 versus $660, P < 0.001). Compared with apixaban, dabigatran switchers had significantly lower mean PPPM ED ($67 versus $123, P < 0.001), OP office ($116 versus $121, P = 0.032), other OP services ($1062 versus $1434, P < 0.001), OP pharmacy ($633 versus $706, P < 0.001) and total healthcare costs ($3254 versus $3805, P = 0.016). Conclusions: Outpatient costs were considerably lower among dabigatran switchers compared with rivaroxaban. Total and OP healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients switching from warfarin to dabigatran versus apixaban. Use of dabigatran following warfarin discontinuation may enable healthcare cost savings among NVAF patients, as compared with rivaroxaban or apixaban. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is one of the first head-to-head real-world evidence studies comparing stroke-related and bleed-related healthcare and resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating oral anticoagulants.Methods: Adult NVAF patients newly diagnosed and treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2014 were identified using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Per-patient-per-month stroke and bleed-related HCRU and costs were reported.Results: Dabigatran patients were matched 1:1 to 26,592 rivaroxaban and 33,024 warfarin patients (mean age=68 years). Compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related inpatient and outpatient HCRU (0.004 vs. 0.005; 0.099 vs. 0.145) and significantly lower adjusted bleed-related costs ($116 vs. $172), all p <0.05. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran patients had significantly lower stroke-related outpatient visits (0.034 vs. 0.048, p<0.001) and higher bleed-related outpatient visits (0.101 vs. 0.091, p=0.045). Multivariate adjusted bleed-related costs were significantly lower for dabigatran patients than warfarin patients ($94 vs. $138, p<0.001).Conclusions: The results suggest that dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related HCRU and costs than rivaroxaban patients, and lower outpatient stroke-related HCRU, higher bleed-related outpatient HCRU, and lower bleed-related costs than warfarin patients. It provides valuable stroke-related and bleed-related HCRU and costs information among commercially insured and Medicare patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives With the approval of new non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), it is anticipated that their introduction may change NVAF treatment patterns; however, there is limited supporting real-world evidence. This study investigated guideline-recommended oral anticoagulation (OAC) treatment and persistence in newly diagnosed patients with NVAF to understand demographic and clinical characteristics. Design Retrospective observational administrative claims study in the USA. Setting Patients with NVAF with ≥1 pharmacy claim for OAC (warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban) and no atrial fibrillation diagnosis within 12 months prior to the first claim were identified in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between 1 November 2010 and 30 November 2013. Participants 45 092 patients with NVAF were included. Outcomes The proportion of OAC-treated patients was stratified by CHADS2 score. Treatment persistence was measured from OAC initiation to discontinuation, end of eligibility or end of study period (30 November 2014), whichever occurred first. Results Almost half of the patients (41.1%) received an OAC. The proportion treated differed slightly in baseline stroke risk (CHADS2<2: 39.8%; CHADS2=2 or 3: 42.4%; and CHADS2>3: 40.3%: p<0.001). Treated patients were slightly younger (70±12.2 vs 71±14.3 years; p<0.001), more likely male (59.7% vs 52.5%; p<0.001) and had a slightly elevated stroke risk (CHADS2: 2.03±1.3 vs 1.98±1.4; p<0.001) and a lower bleeding risk (HEMORR2HAGES: 2.55±1.8 vs 2.80±1.9; p<0.001) relative to untreated patients. Overall, patients with higher CHADS2 scores had higher HEMORR2HAGES scores. The mean follow-up was 2.25 years (2.25±0.85) and 72.7% of patients discontinued OACs; nearly 25% within 3 months and 55% within 12 months. The mean time to discontinuation was 255±249 days. Conclusions The proportion of patients with NVAF who received OAC treatment was lower than previously reported and differed slightly by stroke risk. Patients with an elevated stroke risk had a higher bleeding risk, suggesting that clinicians may incorporate both in the treatment decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Compare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among newly-diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.Methods: Newly-diagnosed adult NVAF patients initiating dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin (index event) between October 1, 2010-December 31, 2014 were identified using MarketScan claims data, and followed until medication discontinuation, switch, inpatient death, enrollment end, or study end (December 31, 2015). Dabigatran patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 separately with apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin patients. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause cost, HCRU, and 30-day re-admissions were reported. Costs were analyzed using generalized linear models.Results: Final cohorts, each matched with dabigatran patients, included 8,857 apixaban patients, 26,592 rivaroxaban patients, and 33,046 warfarin patients. Dabigatran patients had lower adjusted PPPM total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs compared to rivaroxaban ($4,093 vs $4,636, $1,476 vs $1,862, and $2,016 vs $2,121, respectively, all p ≤ .001) and warfarin ($4,199 vs $4,872, $1,505 vs $1,851, and $2,049 vs $2,514, respectively, all p < .001). Adjusted costs were similar for dabigatran and apixaban. Dabigatran patients had significantly fewer hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and pharmacy claims than rivaroxaban patients (0.06 vs 0.07, 4.84 vs 4.96 and 4.80 vs 4.93, respectively, all p < .020) and warfarin patients (0.06 vs 0.07, 4.77 vs 6.88, and 4.76 vs 5.89, respectively, all p < .001). Dabigatran patients had similar hospitalizations to apixaban, but higher outpatient visits (4.70 vs 4.31) and pharmacy claims (4.86 vs 4.61), both p < .001.Conclusions: This real-world study found adjusted all-cause costs were lower for dabigatran compared to rivaroxaban and warfarin patients and similar to apixaban patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]