Search

BackgroundOral anticoagulants (OACs) mitigate stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The study aim was to analyze prevalence and predictors of OAC underutilization.MethodsNewly diagnosed AF patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2 were identified from the US CMS Database (January 1, 2013-December 31, 2017). Patients were stratified based on having an OAC prescription versus not and the OAC prescription group was stratified by direct OAC (DOACs) versus warfarin. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of OAC underutilization.ResultsAmong 1,204,507 identified AF patients, 617,611 patients (51.3%) were not prescribed an OAC during follow-up (mean: 2.4 years), and 586,896 patients (48.7%) were prescribed an OAC during this period (DOAC: 388,629 [66.2%]; warfarin: 198,267 [33.8%]). Age ≥ 85 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.56), female sex (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.96), Black race (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.77-0.79) and comorbidities such as gastrointestinal (GI; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.41-0.44) and intracranial bleeding (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28-0.31) were associated with lower utilization of OACs. Furthermore, age ≥ 85 years (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.91-0.94), Black race (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.80), ischemic stroke (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.80), GI bleeding (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.77), and intracranial bleeding (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.80) predicted lower use of DOACs versus warfarin.ConclusionsAlthough OAC therapy prescription is the standard of care for stroke prevention in AF patients, its overall utilization is still low among Medicare patients ≥ 65 years old, with specific patient characteristics that predict underutilization.

BackgroundOral anticoagulants (OACs) mitigate the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients.ObjectiveElderly AF patients who were treated with OACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin) were compared against AF patients who were not treated with OACs with respect to their clinical and economic outcomes.MethodsNewly diagnosed AF patients were identified between January 2013 and December 2017 in the Medicare database. Evidence of an OAC treatment claim on or after the first AF diagnosis was used to classify patients into treatment-defined cohorts, and these cohorts were further stratified based on the initial OAC prescribed. The risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), and death were analyzed using inverse probability treatment weighted time-dependent Cox regression models, and costs were compared with marginal structural models.ResultsThe two treatment groups were composed of 1,421,187 AF patients: OAC treated (N = 583,350, 41.0% [36.4% apixaban, 4.9% dabigatran, 0.1% edoxaban, 26.7% rivaroxaban, and 31.9% warfarin patients]) and untreated (N = 837,837, 59.0%). OAC-treated patients had a lower adjusted risk of stroke/SE compared to untreated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.72). Additionally patients receiving OACs had a lower adjusted risk of death (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.55-0.56) and a higher risk of MB (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.54-1.59) and this trend was consistent across each OAC sub-group. The OAC-treated cohort had lower adjusted total healthcare costs per patient per month ($4,381 vs $7,172; p < .0001).ConclusionFor the OAC-treated cohort in this elderly US population, stroke/SE and all-cause death were lower, while risk of MB was higher. Among OAC treated patients, total healthcare costs were lower than those of the untreated cohort.

PurposeOsteoarthritis (OA) is a frequently occurring, chronic condition; however, few studies describe the clinical characteristics of individuals with OA and the treatments they use to manage their symptoms. We conducted a study to characterize the OA population in the US and describe the nonsurgical management used by this population based on consumer research data collected through an online survey.MethodsData from the 2017 US National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) for adults aged ≥35 years were used to evaluate the relationship between OA and certain study participant characteristics and to identify the most commonly used treatment options. NHWS data were collected through a survey of individuals drawn from the internet panel maintained by Lightspeed Research (Bridgewater, New Jersey) and its panel partners. Weighted estimates were generated using data from the 2016 Current Population Survey (Annual Demographics File) of the US Census Bureau. Comparisons between the general and OA populations were made based on body mass index (BMI), exercise frequency, and comorbid diagnoses of hypertension or diabetes. Among the OA population, the use of dietary supplements, prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) treatments with chondroitin with or without glucosamine (Ch ± Gl), prescription treatment by time since OA diagnosis, and utilization of a physical therapist were also recorded.ResultsThe prevalence of OA in the overall population was 17.6 % and was higher for individuals with a BMI ≥ 25 (21.9 %), patients diagnosed with hypertension or diabetes (36.2 %), and those who did not exercise regularly (19.0 %). Adults without OA were more likely to exercise regularly (12 days per month or more) than adults diagnosed with OA. Ch ± Gl (6.0 %) was the most commonly used OTC dietary supplement in the OA population, followed by omega-3 fatty acids (2.8 %), vitamin D (1.9 %), calcium (1.1 %), and multivitamins (0.7 %). Individuals using Ch ± Gl were more likely to use OTC only products (75.4 % vs 37.3 %) or prescription medications, namely non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or opioids, and OTC products (24.6 % vs 13.0 %) compared with individuals not using Ch ± Gl, while individuals not using Ch ± Gl were more likely to be untreated (30.3 % vs 0) or to use prescription medications only (19.4 % vs 0). Nearly 32 % of individuals with OA reported using prescription treatments, and the likelihood of using a prescription treatment increased with number of years since OA diagnosis (

Abstract Background Older patients are typically underrepresented in clinical trials of medications for chronic pain. A post hoc analysis of multiple clinical studies of pregabalin in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) or postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in older patients. Methods Data from 11 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies of pregabalin in patients with DPN or PHN were pooled. Efficacy outcomes included change in Daily Pain Rating Scale score, ≥30% and ≥50% responders, and endpoint pain score ≤3. Safety was based on adverse events (AEs). Primary efficacy was analyzed by analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, age category, protocol, baseline pain, and treatment-by-age category interaction. Results 2516 patients (white, n = 2344 [93.2%]; men, n = 1347 [53.5%]; PHN, n = 1003 [39.9%]; pregabalin, n = 1595) were included in the analysis. Patients were grouped by age: 18 to 64 years (n = 1236), 65 to 74 years (n = 766), and ≥75 years (n = 514). Baseline mean pain and sleep interference scores were comparable across treatment and age groups. Significant improvements in endpoint mean pain were observed for all pregabalin dosages versus placebo in all age groups (p ≤ 0.0009), except for the lowest dosage (150 mg/day) in the youngest age group. Clinically meaningful pain relief, defined as ≥30% and ≥50% pain response, was observed in all age groups. The most common AEs were dizziness, somnolence, peripheral edema, asthenia, dry mouth, weight gain, and infections. The relative risks for these AEs increased with pregabalin dose, but did not appear related to older age or type of neuropathic pain. Conclusions Pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) significantly reduced pain in older patients (age ≥65 years) with neuropathic pain and improvements in pain were comparable to those observed in younger patients. Titration of pregabalin to the lowest effective dose should allow for effective pain relief while minimizing AEs in older patients with neuropathic pain. Given the common use of polypharmacy in older patients, the absence of known drug-drug interactions makes pregabalin an important treatment option for older patients with pain of neuropathic origin.

We describe an approach for combining and analyzing high-dimensional genomic and low-dimensional phenotypic data. The approach leverages a scheme of weights applied to the variables instead of observations and, hence, permits incorporation of the information provided by the low dimensional data source. It can also be incorporated into commonly used downstream techniques, such as random forest or penalized regression. Finally, the simulated lupus studies involving genetic and clinical data are used to illustrate the overall idea and show that the proposed enriched penalized method can select significant genetic variables while keeping several important clinical variables in the final model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To create a data-driven definition of post-COVID conditions (PCC) by directly measure changes in symptomatology before and after a first COVID episode. Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort study using Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record (EHR) dataset from the United States of persons of any age April 2020-September 2021. For each person with COVID (ICD-10-CM U07.1 "COVID-19" or positive test result), we selected up to 3 comparators. The final COVID symptom score was computed as the sum of new diagnoses weighted by each diagnosis' ratio of incidence in COVID group relative to comparator group. For the subset of COVID cases diagnosed in September 2021, we compared the incidence of PCC using our data-driven definition with ICD-10-CM code U09.9 "Post-COVID Conditions", first available in the US October 2021. Results: The final cohort contained 588,611 people with COVID, with mean age of 48 years and 38% male. Our definition identified 20% of persons developed PCC in follow-up. PCC incidence increased with age: (7.8% of persons aged 0–17, 17.3% aged 18–64, and 33.3% aged 65+) and did not change over time (20.0% among persons diagnosed with COVID in 2020 versus 20.3% in 2021). For cases diagnosed in September 2021, our definition identified 19.0% with PCC in follow-up as compared to 2.9% with U09.9 code in follow-up. Conclusion: Symptom and U09.9 code-based definitions alone captured different populations. Maximal capture may consider a combined approach, particularly before the availability and routine utilization of specific ICD-10 codes and with the lack consensus-based definitions on the syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: Non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are potential risk factors for severe pneumonia and other infections. Available data on the role of NAFLD/NASH in worsening outcomes for COVID‐19 are controversial and might be confounded by comorbidities. Methods: We used the PINC AI™ Healthcare Data Special Release (PHD‐SR) to identify patients with COVID‐19 (ICD‐10) at approximately 900 hospitals in the United States. We performed exact matching (age, gender, and ethnicity) for patients with or without NAFLD/NASH, adjusting for demographics (admission type, region) and comorbidities (e.g., obesity, diabetes) through inverse probability of treatment weighting and then analysed hospitalisation‐related outcomes. Results: Among 513 623 patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19), we identified 14 667 with NAFLD/NASH who could be matched to 14 667 controls. Mean age was 57.6 (±14.9) years, 50.8% were females and 43.7% were non‐Hispanic whites. After matching, baseline characteristics (e.g., age, ethnicity, and gender) and comorbidities (e.g., hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) were well balanced (standard difference (SD) <.10), except for cirrhosis and malignancies. Patients with COVID‐19 and NAFLD/NASH had higher FIB‐4 scores, a significantly longer hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care LOS than controls (9.4 vs. 8.3 days, and 10.4 vs. 9.3, respectively), even after adjusting for cirrhosis and malignancies. Patients with COVID‐19 and NAFLD/NASH also had significantly higher risk of needing invasive mandatory ventilation (IMV) (odds ratio 1.0727; 95% CI 1.0095–1.1400). Other outcomes were similar in both groups. Conclusions: In this large real‐world cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID‐19 in the United States, NAFLD/NASH were obesity‐independent risk factors for complicated disease courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To describe utilization patterns, negative clinical outcomes and economic burden of patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and/or knee who received a prescription for tramadol or non-tramadol opioids vs. non-opioid drugs. Optum Healthcare Solutions, Inc. commercial claims data were used (1/2012--3/2017). Adults with ≥2 diagnoses of OA of the hip and/or knee, and ≥30 days supply of pain medications were identified during the three-year period from the date of first prescription (index date) after the first OA diagnosis. Drug utilization statistics in the follow-up period were summarized by initial treatment (i.e. tramadol, non-tramadol opioids, non-opioid drugs). Opioid initiators were matched to those initiated on non-opioid treatments using a propensity score model accounting for baseline characteristics. Matched pairs analysis compared outcomes for these cohorts. Of 62,715 total patients, 15,270 (24.3%) initiated treatment with opioids, including 3,513 (5.6%) on tramadol and 11,757 (18.7%) on non-tramadol opioids. Opioid initiators had more comorbidities, higher baseline healthcare costs, and were more likely to have OA of the hip. Among non-opioid initiators, 27.5% switched to tramadol and 63% switched to non-tramadol opioids. Among tramadol initiators, 71% switched to non-tramadol opioids. Patients initiated on opioids had 20.4% (p <.01) higher all-cause healthcare costs and higher percentages experiencing multiple negative clinical outcomes (all p <.01) compared to matched controls. Most patients with OA of the hip and/or knee either initiate on or switch to opioids for long-term management of OA-related pain despite known risks. This highlights the need for new treatments that delay or prevent use of opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]