Search

Abstract Background There is limited data on the comparative economic and humanistic burden of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United States. The objective was to examine the burden of disease comparing NASH to a representative sample of the general population and separately to a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cohort by assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, healthcare resource use (HRU) and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI). Methods Data came from the 2016 National Health and Wellness Survey, a nationally representative patient-reported outcomes survey conducted in the United States. Respondents with physician-diagnosed NASH, physician-diagnosed T2DM, and respondents from the general population were compared. Humanistic burden was examined with mental (MCS) and physical (PCS) component summary scores from the Short-Form (SF)-36v2, concomitant diagnosis of anxiety, depression, and sleep difficulties. Economic burden was analysed based on healthcare professional (HCP) and emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations in the past six months; absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment scores on WPAI questionnaire. Bivariate and multivariable analysis were conducted for each outcome and matched comparative group. Results After adjusting for baseline demographics and characteristics, NASH (N = 136) compared to the matched general population cohort (N = 544), reported significantly lower (worse) mental (MCS 43.19 vs. 46.22, p = 0.010) and physical (PCS 42.04 vs. 47.10, p

Purpose Event-based clinical outcome trials have shown limited evidence to support guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to

Purpose Available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports the guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to

Background & Aims: Data on the economic and humanistic burden of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are scarce. This study assessed the comparative burden of NASH, relative to a representative sample from the general population and a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cohort, in terms of health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI), and healthcare resource use. Methods: Data across 5 European countries came from the 2016 National Health and Wellness Survey, a nationally representative patient-reported outcomes survey. Outcomes included mental (MCS) and physical (PCS) component scores from the Short-Form (SF)-36v2, WPAI scores, self-reported physician diagnosis of sleep difficulties, anxiety, and depression, and healthcare resource use: healthcare professional visits, hospital visits, and emergency room visits in the previous 6 months. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted for each outcome and comparative group. Results: After adjusting for matching criteria and covariates, patients with NASH (n = 184) reported significantly worse health-related quality of life, worse WPAI scores, and more healthcare resource use than the general population (n = 736) (MCS 39.22 vs. 45.16, PCS 42.84 vs. 47.76; overall work impairment 49.15% vs. 30.77%, healthcare professional visits 10.73 vs. 6.01, emergency room visits 0.57 vs. 0.22, hospitalizations 0.47 vs. 0.17, p ≪0.05 for all). Patients with NASH did not differ from patients with T2DM (n = 368) on PCS and WPAI scores, suggesting a similar impairment on work and daily activities, but did report significantly worse mental status (MCS 39.64 vs. 43.64, p ≪0.05) and more healthcare resource use than those with T2DM (healthcare professional visits 10.85 vs. 7.86, emergency room visits 0.65 vs. 0.23, hospitalizations 0.39 vs. 0.19, p ≪0.05 for all). Conclusions: These findings suggest that the burden of NASH may be underestimated, highlighting the unmet needs of patients with NASH. Lay summary: These findings show that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) experience a significant burden of illness, in terms of health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment, and healthcare resource use. As there is currently no approved treatment for NASH, these findings highlight the unmet medical need of patients with NASH. Keywords: non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, type 2 diabetes, burden of illness

Dion Zappe1, Cheraz Cherif Papst2, Philippe Ferber3, On behalf of the PROMPT investigators1Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 2Novartis Pharma Ag, Basel, Switzerland; 3Roche Pharmaceuticals, Basel, SwitzerlandObjective: Delays in achieving blood pressure (BP) control may increase morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension. Thus, deciding which antihypertensive agent to use and at what dosage, in addition to determining when to initiate combination therapy and which agents to combine, is important for achieving BP control.Methods: This randomized, double-blind, 14-week study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of various doses of valsartan ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) versus amlodipine ± HCTZ for maximizing BP control in 1,285 patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with stage 1 hypertension and naïve to antihypertensive therapy (33.9%) started valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. Treatment-naïve patients with stage 2 hypertension (13.5%) or those uncontrolled on current antihypertensive monotherapy (52.6%) started valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or amlodipine 10 mg. At weeks 4, 8, and 11, patients not achieving BP control were up-titrated (maximum: valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, amlodipine 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg).Results: At study end, 78.8% of patients on valsartan ± HCTZ were controlled (BP < 140/90 mmHg) and still on study medication versus 67.8% on amlodipine ± HCTZ (P < 0.0001). Amlodipine-treated patients had a higher incidence of peripheral edema (22.4% vs 2.2%) and associated discontinuations (7.3% vs

Background: Most patients with hypertension will require combination therapy to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, especially the elderly, obese, or those with stage 2 hypertension.Objective: To assess BP response and time to achieve BP goals in a diverse population of hypertensive patients treated with hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan, or a combination.Methods: For this secondary post-hoc analysis, data were pooled from two similar randomized, double-blind, 8-week trials that evaluated hydrochlorothiazide (12.5–25 mg) and valsartan (160 mg) monotherapies, their combination (160/12.5 mg), and placebo. Subgroups were defined by age, hypertension severity, and obesity. Adults with diastolic BP ≥95 and ≤115 mmHg were included. Goal rates were estimated from a logistic model with treatment, study, age group, race, and baseline body mass index as factors and baseline diastolic BP as a covariate. Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to calculate the time to achieve BP goals.Main outcome measures: Efficacy variables were reductions from baseline to study end in systolic BP and diastolic BP, rates of achieving BP goals (<140/90 mmHg), and time to achieve BP goals. Adverse events were also reported for the pooled trials.Results: BP reductions at study end and goal achievement rates were greater with combination therapy (−20/15 mmHg and 72%, respectively) than with either monotherapy (valsartan 160 mg: −14/11 mmHg, 61%; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg: −14/10 mmHg, 50%) for the overall population (N=1313) and in patient subgroups. Patients treated with initial combination therapy reached goal in 27–56% of the time needed for those treated with monotherapy. Combination therapy was well tolerated and was associated with a decreased incidence of hypokalemia compared with hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy.Conclusions: Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy resulted in greater reductions in BP and achievement of goal BP in a shorter period of time. Although interpretation of this study is subject to the limitations associated with any post-hoc analysis, the results suggest that initiating treatment with combination therapy may be considered for expedient and effective BP control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]