Search

Treatment for adults diagnosed with binge-eating disorder (BED) includes psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy and aims to reduce the frequency of binge-eating episodes and disordered eating, improve metabolic-related issues and reduce weight, and address mood symptoms. Data describing real-world treatment patterns are lacking; therefore, this study aims to characterize real-world treatment patterns among patients with BED. This retrospective study identified adult patients with BED using natural language processing of clinical notes from the Optum electronic health record database from 2009 to 2015. Treatment patterns were examined during the 12 months preceding the BED recognition date and during a follow-up period after BED recognition (1–3 years for most patients). Among 1042 patients, 384 were categorized as the BED cohort and 658, who met less stringent criteria, were categorized as probable BED. In the BED cohort, mean ± SD age was 45.2 ± 13.4 years and 81.8% were women (probable BED, 45.9 ± 12.8 years, 80.2%). A greater percentage of patients in the BED cohort were prescribed pharmacotherapy (70.6% [probable BED, 66.9%]) than received/discussed psychotherapy (53.1% [probable BED, 39.2%]) at baseline. In the BED cohort, 54.4% of patients were prescribed antidepressants (probable BED, 52.4%), 25.3% stimulants (probable BED, 20.1%), and 34.4% nonspecific psychotherapy (probable BED, 24.6%) at baseline, with no substantive differences observed during follow-up. Low percentages of patients in the BED cohort received/discussed cognitive behavioral therapy at baseline (12.5% [probable BED, 9.0%) or during follow-up (13.0% [probable BED, 8.8%). Among patients with ≥1 psychotherapy visit, the mean ± SD number of visits in the BED cohort was 1.2 ± 5.9 at baseline (probable BED, 1.7 ± 7.3) and 2.2 ± 7.7 during follow-up (probable BED, 2.6 ± 7.7). This cohort of patients with BED was treated more frequently with pharmacotherapy than psychotherapy. These data may help inform strategies for reducing differences between real-world treatment patterns and evidence-based recommendations.

Objective: To evaluate annual concomitant psychotropic medication use among stimulant-treated children/adolescents with ADHD. Method: Children/adolescents with ≥1 primary ADHD diagnosis who had received ≥30 days of stimulant medication were identified from insurance claims for each calendar year (2011-2014). Use of 15 psychotropic medications concomitantly with stimulants was evaluated and their prevalence in each year was calculated overall and by medication category for children (6-12 years) and adolescents (13-17 years). Results: Each year 133,354 to 157,303 children and 95,632 to 111,280 adolescents were included. Annual period prevalence of any concomitant psychotropic medication use was 22.9% to 25.0% for children and 25.2% to 28.2% for adolescents. The most common medication categories included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (children: 6.8%-7.9%; adolescents: 12.7%-14.9%), atypical antipsychotics (4.2%-5.4%; 5.3%-6.3%), and guanfacine extended release (5.1%-7.0%; 2.3%-3.6%). Conclusion: Around a quarter of children/adolescents with ADHD were prescribed psychotropic medication concomitant to stimulant treatment, although only 2 of the 15 medication classes studied were Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for adjunctive use.

The prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) is estimated to be between 4.3% and 5.2% among adults in the United States. Little is known about the health care resource utilization and costs associated with IBS-C.To (a) evaluate the annual total all-cause, gastrointestinal (GI)-related, and IBS-C-related health care costs among IBS-C patients seeking medical care in a commercially insured population and (b) estimate the incremental all-cause health care costs among IBS-C patients relative to matched controls.Patients aged ≥ 18 years with continuous medical and pharmacy benefit eligibility in 2010 were identified from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, which consists of administrative claims from 14 geographically dispersed U.S. health plans representing 45 million lives. IBS-C patients were defined as those with ≥ 1 medical claim with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code in any position for IBS (ICD-9-CM 564.1x) and either ≥ 2 medical claims for constipation (ICD-9-CM 564.0x) on different service dates or ≥ 1 medical claim for constipation plus ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for a constipation-related prescription on different dates of service during the study period. Controls were defined as patients without any medical claims for IBS, constipation, abdominal pain, or bloating or pharmacy claims for constipation-related prescriptions. Controls were randomly selected and matched with IBS-C patients in a 1:1 ratio based on age (± 4 years), gender, health plan region, and health plan type. Patients with diagnoses or prescriptions suggesting mixed IBS, IBS with diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, or drug-induced constipation were excluded. Total health care costs in 2010 U.S. dollars were defined as the sum of health plan and patient paid costs for prescriptions and medical services, including inpatient visits, emergency room (ER) visits, physician office visits, and other outpatient services. The total cost approach was used to assess total all-cause or disease-specific health care costs for patients with IBS-C, while the incremental cost approach was used to examine the excess all-cause costs of IBS-C by comparing IBS-C patients with matched controls. Generalized linear models with bootstrapping were used to assess the incremental all-cause costs attributable solely to IBS-C after adjusting for demographics, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) score, and other general and GI-related comorbidities not included in the ECI score.A total of 7,652 patients (n = 3,826 each in the IBS-C and control cohorts) were included in the analysis. The mean (± SD) age was 48 (± 17) years, and 83.6% were female. The mean annual all-cause health care costs for IBS-C patients were $11,182, with over half (53.7%) of the costs attributable to outpatient services, including physician office visits and other outpatient services (13.1% and 40.6%, respectively). Remaining total all-cause costs were attributable to hospitalizations (21.8%), prescriptions (19.1%), and ER visits (5.4%). GI-related costs ($4,456) comprised 39.8% of total all-cause costs, while IBS-C-related costs ($1,335) accounted for 11.9% and were primarily driven by costs of other outpatient services (50.3%). After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, the incremental annual all-cause health care costs associated with IBS-C were $3,856 ($8,621 for IBS-C patients vs. $4,765 for controls, P less than 0.01) per patient per year, of which 78.1% of the incremental costs were due to medical services, and 21.9% were due to prescription fills.IBS-C imposes a substantial economic burden in terms of direct health care costs in a commercially insured population. Compared with matched controls, IBS-C patients incurred significantly higher total annual all-cause health care costs even after controlling for general and GI-related comorbidities. Incremental all-cause costs associated with IBS-C were mainly driven by costs related to more frequent use of medical services as opposed to prescriptions.

Patients with constipation account for 3.1 million US physician visits a year, but care costs for patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) or chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) compared to the general public have received little study. The study aim was to describe healthcare utilization and compare medical costs for patients with IBS-C or CIC vs matched controls from a community-based sample.A nested case-control sample (IBS-C and CIC cases) and matched controls (1:2) for each case group were selected from Olmsted County, MN, individuals responding to a community-based survey of gastrointestinal symptoms (2008) who received healthcare from a participating Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) provider. Using REP healthcare utilization data, unadjusted and adjusted standardized costs were compared for the 2- and 10-year periods prior to the survey for 115 IBS-C patients and 230 controls and 365 CIC patients and 730 controls. Two time periods were chosen as these conditions are episodic, but long-term.Outpatient costs for IBS-C ($6,800) and CIC ($6,284) patients over a 2-year period prior to the survey were significantly higher than controls ($4,242 and $5,254, respectively) after adjusting for co-morbidities, age, and sex. IBS-C outpatient costs ($25,448) and emergency room costs ($6,892) were significantly higher than controls ($21,024 and $3,962, respectively) for the 10-year period prior. Unadjusted data analyses of cases compared to controls demonstrated significantly higher imaging costs for IBS-C cases and procedure costs for CIC cases over the 10-year period.Data were collected from a random community sample primarily receiving care from a limited number of providers in that area.Patients with IBS-C and CIC had significantly higher outpatient costs for the 2-year period compared with controls. IBS-C patients also had higher ER costs than the general population.

Selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic cardiovascular (CV) events. Prior studies have found that rofecoxib has a destabilizing effect on blood pressure; however, whether this translates to an increased risk of thromboembolic CV events is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate risk of thromboembolic CV events among hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients treated with rofecoxib or celecoxib, nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs), or no NSAIDs (nonusers). This was a retrospective cohort study of 31,743 adult arthritis patients enrolled in a Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance plan in the northeastern United States. The main outcome measure was incident acute myocardial infarction and stroke. A clinically significant channeling effect was observed where selective COX-2 inhibitor users had a more severe CV risk profile. Among normotensive patients, the hazard ratio (HR) of CV events for ns-NSAIDs, rofecoxib, or celecoxib versus nonusers was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.21), 1.05 (0.61-1.80), and 1.19 (0.86-1.66), respectively. Among hypertensive patients, the risk of CV events for ns-NSAIDs users was not significantly different versus nonusers (HR = 1.21; 0.88-1.67). However, rofecoxib was associated with a significant 2-fold increase in CV risk versus nonusers of NSAIDs (HR = 2.16; 1.51-3.09), whereas celecoxib was not (HR = 1.18; 0.89-1.57). These data support the hypothesis that elevated CV risk is not a drug class effect of selective COX-2 inhibitors. That this effect was specific to hypertensive patients indicates that blood pressure destabilization is likely an important contributing mechanism.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of linaclotide treatment on patient confidence in bowel movement (BM) success, completeness, and ease, predictability of BM timing, and on treatment satisfaction in chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) patients with prominent abdominal bloating.Methods: Post-hoc analyses were performed on data from a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of linaclotide in patients who met modified Rome II criteria for CIC and had abdominal bloating ≥5 (0-10-point numerical rating scale). Patients were randomized to linaclotide 145 μg (n=154), 290 μg (n=160), or placebo (n=173) once daily. Assessments of patient confidence included confidence in having a BM at least once every other day, producing stool when going to the bathroom with an urge to have a BM, feeling completely empty after having a BM, and occurrence of BMs without straining, each measured weekly in the two-week pretreatment period and 12-week treatment period using a 3-point Likert scale (1=Not at all; 2=Somewhat; 3=Very). Patients' ability to predict BM timing after taking study medication was measured weekly in the 12-week treatment period using a 3-point Likert scale (1=Not at all; 2=Somewhat; 3=Very). Patient satisfaction with the study medication's ability to relieve constipation symptoms was measured using a 5point Likert scale (1=Not at all; 2=A little; 3=Moderately; 4=Quite; 5=Very). Data were averaged over the pretreatment period and each of the three (4-week) study months. Treatment and time effects were analyzed (for the intent-to-treat population) within a repeatedmeasures linear model. Results: Table 1 displays the study results. No differences were observed between treatment arms for any outcomes during the pretreatment period. Prior to treatment initiation, 79% of patients reported no confidence in having successful, complete BMs without straining. There was an apparent dose-response on improvement over time across all outcomes, with statistically significant differences in improvement observed between linaclotide (both doses) and placebo (all p