Search

Background: In chronically ill patients, medication adherence during implementation can be crucial for treatment success and can decrease health costs. In some populations, regression models do not show this relationship. We aim to estimate subgroup-specific and personalized effects to identify target groups for interventions.Methods: We defined three cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes (n = 12,713), type 2 diabetes (n = 85,162) and hyperlipidemia (n = 117,485) from German claims data between 2012 and 2015. We estimated the association of adherence during implementation in the first year (proportion of days covered) and mean total costs in the three following years, controlled for sex, age, Charlson’s Comorbidity Index, initial total costs, severity of the disease and surrogates for health behavior. We fitted three different types of models on training data: 1) linear regression models for the overall conditional associations between adherence and costs, 2) model-based trees to identify subgroups of patients with heterogeneous adherence effects, and 3) model-based random forests to estimate personalized adherence effects. To assess the performance of the latter, we conditionally re-estimated the personalized effects using test data, the fixed structure of the forests, and fixed effect estimates of the remaining covariates.Results: 1) our simple linear regression model estimated a positive adherence effect, that is an increase in total costs of 10.73 Euro per PDC-point and year for diabetes type 1, 3.92 Euro for diabetes type 2 and 1.92 Euro for hyperlipidemia (all p ≤ 0.001). 2) The model-based tree detected subgroups with negative estimated adherence effects for diabetes type 2 (-1.69 Euro, 24.4% of cohort) and hyperlipidemia (-0.11 Euro, 36.1% and -5.50 Euro, 5.3%). 3) Our model-based random forest estimated personalized adherence effects with a significant proportion (4.2%–24.1%) of negative effects (up to -8.31 Euro). The precision of these estimates was high for diabetes type 2 and hyperlipidemia patients.Discussion: Our approach shows that tree-based models can identify patients with different adherence effects and the precision of personalized effects is measurable. Identified patients can form target groups for adherence-promotion interventions. The method can also be applied to other outcomes such as hospitalization risk to maximize positive health effects of an intervention.

Burns are leading causes of mortality and morbidity, including prolonged hospitalization, disfigurement, and disability. Erythropoietin (EPO) is a well-known hormone causing erythropoiesis. However, EPO may play a role in healing acute and chronic wounds due to its anti-inflammatory and pro-regenerative effects. Therefore, the large, prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, multi-center clinical trial “EPO in Burns” was initiated to investigate the effects of EPO versus placebo treatment in severely burned patients. The primary endpoint of “EPO in Burns” was defined as the time elapsed until complete re-epithelialization of a defined split skin graft donor site. Additional analyses of post hoc defined subgroups were performed in view of the primary endpoint. The verum (n 45) and control (n 39) groups were compared with regard to the time it took for study wounds (a predefined split skin graft donor site) to reach the three stages of wound healing (re-epithelialization levels). In addition, the effects of gender (females n 18) and concomitant medications insulin (n 36), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (n 41), and vasopressor agents (n 43) were tested. Life tables were used to compare study groups (EPO vs. placebo) within subgroups. The Cox regression model was applied to evaluate interactions between the study drug (EPO) and concomitant medications for each re-epithelialization level. Using our post hoc defined subgroups, we observed a lower chance of wound healing for women compared to men (in terms of hazard ratio: hr100%: 5.984 [95%-CI: (0.805–44.490), p = 0.080]) in our study population, regardless of the study medication. In addition, results indicated an earlier onset of re-epithelialization in the first days of EPO treatment (EPO: 10% vs. Placebo: 3%). Moreover, the interpretation of the hazard ratio suggested EPO might have a positive, synergistic effect on early stages of re-epithelialization when combined with insulin [hr50%: 1.307 (p = 0.568); hr75%: 1,199 (p = 0.715)], as well as a stabilizing effect on critically ill patients [reduced need for vasopressors in the EPO group (EPO: 44% vs. Placebo 59%)]. However, additional high-quality data from clinical trials designed to address these endpoints are required to gain further insight into these effects.

In adult’s burn injuries belong to the top 15 causes of injury. Annually more than a million patients receive specialized treatment. Improving burned patients’ outcomes is still a challenge. Effects of erythropoietin (EPO) are reported to be pro-angiogenic, pro-regenerative, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory and hypoxia/ischemia protective. Study objectives were to demonstrate cytoprotective and regenerative effects of EPO in burned patients in terms of improved wound healing, reduced morbidity and mortality. This was a prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial. The trial was conducted in 13 specialized burn care centers in Germany. Adult Patients with 2b° or 3° burn injuries were included. Patients received state of the art burn care including obligatory split skin graft transplantation. Study medication was EPO or placebo every other day for 21 days. Between 12/08 and 06/14, 116 patients were randomized, 84 received study medication (EPO 45, Placebo 39). Primary endpoint analysis revealed inconclusive results, as only a minority of patients reached the primary endpoint [100% re-epithelialization: EPO: 23% (9/40); Placebo 30% (11/37)]. Several secondary endpoints such as SOFA score (morbidity), EPO level in blood and wound healing onset revealed clinical, and statistically significant results in favor of the EPO group. Adverse Events (AEs) and Severe Adverse Events (SAEs) were in expected ranges; AEs EPO: 80%, (36/45), Placebo: 77%, (30/39); SAEs EPO: 24%, (11/45), Placebo: 24%, (8/39). Out of 84 patients two died, one per group, thus mortality was lower than expected. Results (SOFA score) indicate a lower morbidity of the EPO group, suggesting pro-regenerative effects of EPO in burned patients. Higher EPO levels might influence the faster onset of re-epithelialization in the first 10 days of the treatment. Both effects could reveal new therapeutic options.Clinical Trial Registration: ISRCT Number: ISRCTN95777824 and EudraCT Number: 2006-002886-38, Protocol Number: 0506.