Search

Objectives This study aimed to provide an overview of major data sources in China that can be potentially used for epidemiology, health economics, and outcomes research; compare them with similar data sources in other countries; and discuss future directions of healthcare data development in China. Methods The study was conducted in 2 phases. First, various data sources were identified through a targeted literature review and recommendations by experts. Second, an in-depth assessment was conducted to evaluate the strengths and limitations of administrative claims and electronic health record data, which were further compared with similar data sources in developed countries. Results Secondary databases, including administrative claims and electronic health records, are the major types of real-world data in China. There are substantial variations in available data elements even within the same type of databases. Compared with similar databases in developed countries, the secondary databases in China have some general limitations such as variations in data quality, unclear data usage mechanism, and lack of longitudinal follow-up data. In contrast, the large sample size and the potential to collect additional data based on research needs present opportunities to further improve real-world data in China. Conclusions Although healthcare data have expanded substantially in China, high-quality real-world evidence that can be used to facilitate decision making remains limited in China. To support the generation of real-world evidence, 2 fundamental issues in existing databases need to be addressed—data access/sharing and data quality.

Elizabeth Whalley Buono,1 Bernard Vrijens,2 Hayden B Bosworth,3 Larry Z Liu,4 Leah L Zullig,5,6 Bradi B Granger7,8 1VP, Global Quality, External and Regulatory Affairs, MWV Healthcare, Richmond, VA, USA; 2WestRock Healthcare, Visé, Belgium; 3Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 4Center for Observational and Real World Evidence, Merck, Rahway, NJ and Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, 5Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, 6Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 7Duke University School of Nursing, 8Heart Center Nursing Research Program, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA Abstract: There is little debate that medication nonadherence is a major public health issue and that measuring nonadherence is a crucial step toward improving it. Moreover, while measuring adherence is becoming both more feasible and more common in the era of electronic information, the reliability and usefulness of various measurements of adherence have not been well established. This paper outlines the most commonly used measures of adherence and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each that depend on the purpose for which the measure will be used. International consensus statements on definitions and guidelines for selection and use of medication adherence measures were reviewed. The quality of recommended measures was evaluated in selected publications from 2009 to 2014. The most robust medication adherence measures are often ill suited for large-scale use. Less robust measures were found to be commonly misapplied and subsequently misinterpreted in population-level analyses. Adherence assessment and measurement were rarely integrated into standard patient care practice patterns. Successful scalable and impactful strategies to improve medication adherence will depend on understanding how to efficiently and effectively measure adherence. Keywords: adherence measures, medication adherence, study design, patient-reported outcomes, research methods

Switching branded to generic medications has become a common cost-containment measure. Although this is an important objective for health care systems worldwide, the impact of this practice on patient outcomes needs to be carefully considered. We reviewed the literature summarizing the potential clinical and economic consequences of switching from branded to generic medications on patient outcomes. A literature search of peer-reviewed articles published 2003-2013 using key words of "generic switching" or "substitution" was conducted using PubMed, OvidSP, and ScienceDirect. Of 30 articles identified and reviewed, most were related to the diseases of the central nervous system, especially epilepsy. Based on our review, potential impacts of switching fell into 3 broad categories: patient attitudes and adherence, clinical and safety outcomes, and cost and resource utilization. Although in many cases generics may represent an appropriate alternative to branded products, this may not always be the case. Specifically, several studies suggested that switching may negatively impact medication adherence, whereas other studies found that generic switching was associated with poorer clinical outcomes and more adverse events. In some instances, switching accomplished cost savings but did so at increased total cost of care because of increased physician visits or hospitalizations. Although in many cases generics may represent an appropriate alternative, mandatory generic switching may lead to unintended consequences, especially in certain therapeutic areas. Although further study is warranted, based on our review, it may be medically justifiable for physicians and patients to retain the right to request the branded product in certain cases.

Lung Chan,1 Chen-Huan Chen,2 Juey-Jen Hwang,3 San-Jou Yeh,4 Kou-Gi Shyu,5 Ruey-Tay Lin,6 Yi-Heng Li,7 Larry Z Liu,8 Jim Z Li,9 Wen-Yi Shau,10 Te-Chang Weng,10 1Department of Neurology, Shuang-Ho Hospital, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei, 2Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, 3Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, 4Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, 5Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, 6Department of Neurology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, 7Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan; 8Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 9Pfizer Inc, San Diego, CA ,USA; 10Pfizer Ltd., New Taipei City, Taiwan Abstract: Hypertension is a major risk factor for strokes and myocardial infarction (MI). Given its effectiveness and safety profile, the calcium channel blocker amlodipine is among the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive drugs. This analysis was conducted to determine the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the use of amlodipine and valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, in preventing stroke and MI in Taiwanese hypertensive patients. A state transition (Markov) model was developed to compare the 5-year costs and QALYs for amlodipine and valsartan. Effectiveness data were based on the NAGOYA HEART Study, local studies, and a published meta-analysis. Utility data and costs of MI and stroke were retrieved from the published literature. Medical costs were based on the literature and inflated to 2011 prices; drug costs were based on National Health Insurance prices in 2014. A 3% discount rate was used for costs and QALYs and a third-party payer perspective adopted. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Compared with valsartan, amlodipine was associated with cost savings of New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) 2,251 per patient per year: costs were NTD 4,296 and NTD 6,547 per patient per year for amlodipine and valsartan users, respectively. Fewer cardiovascular events were reported in patients receiving amlodipine versus valsartan (342 vs 413 per 10,000 patients over 5 years, respectively). Amlodipine had a net gain of 58 QALYs versus valsartan per 10,000 patients over 5 years. Sensitivity analyses showed that the discount rate and cohort age had a larger effect on total cost and cost difference than on QALYs. However, amlodipine results were more favorable than valsartan irrespective of discount rate or cohort age. When administered to Taiwanese patients for hypertension control, amlodipine was associated with lower cost and more QALYs compared with valsartan due to a lower risk of stroke and MI events. Keywords: cost-effectiveness, pharmacoeconomic, Markov model, CCB, ARB

Patients hospitalized with acute medical illness have an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). American College of Chest Physicians guidelines list various chronic illnesses, sepsis, advanced age, history of VTE, and immobility as risk factors and recommend prophylactic anticoagulation using fondaparinux, low-molecular weight heparin, or low-dose unfractionated heparin. The objectives of this study were to examine pharmacological prophylaxis against VTE among hospitalized medically ill patients and to assess demographic and clinical correlates related to VTE prophylaxis. A retrospective (1999-2010) electronic medical records study included patients aged 40 years and older hospitalized for at least 3 days, with significant medical illness or with a VTE hospitalization 30-365 days before admission. Each patient's first qualifying hospitalization was analyzed. Exclusions were if VTE treatment was started within 1 day of admission, or if warfarin (and not heparin or enoxaparin) was used. Prophylaxis was defined if the first inpatient dose of subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin was at prophylaxis levels (lower than treatment levels). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with VTE prophylaxis. Among 12,980 patients, 22.1% received prophylaxis (11.8% with enoxaparin, 10.3% with heparin). VTE prophylaxis was positively associated with year of hospitalization, subcutaneous heparin in the month before admission, aspirin, self-pay status, age, and sepsis. VTE prophylaxis was negatively associated with smoking, alcohol, warfarin in the past 30 days, and primary diagnoses of stroke, infectious disease, or inflammatory bowel disease. Pharmacological VTE prophylaxis has increased significantly over the past 12 years but is still largely underused in patients hospitalized with acute medical illness. Multiple demographic, behavioral, and clinical factors are associated with inpatient VTE prophylaxis.

Patients who have total hip (THR) or knee (TKR) replacement have an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation. The aim of the study was to examine pharmacologic prophylaxis against VTE among patients with THR or TKR and to assess demographic and clinical correlates related to VTE prophylaxis. Using 15 years of data (1995-2009) from an electronic medical record system for an inner-city public hospital in the United States, we examined pharmacologic prophylaxis against VTE and associated factors in patients after THR (n = 242) and TKR (n = 317). Before the early 2000s, aspirin was the most common prophylaxis agent (THR, 61% and TKR, 65%), and 26% of patients with THR and 19% of patients with TKR did not receive prophylaxis. Enoxaparin use has increased since 2000, and warfarin is now the most common prophylaxis agent (THR, 70% and TKR, 61%). After controlling for time period, factors associated with prophylaxis pattern included obesity, hip fracture, and the surgeon's number of years in practice. VTE prophylaxis medications in patients with total joint replacement have changed over 15 years, in trends generally consistent with the evolution of guidelines. Obesity, history of hip fracture, and physician's experience are associated with the prescription of VTE prophylaxis medications.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the most serious clinical consequence of atrial fibrillation, which is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as efficacious, safe and convenient stroke prevention agents. This updated network meta-analysis focused on the relative efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban and edoxaban for stroke prevention in (i) patients with CHADS2 score ≥2, (ii) secondary stroke prevention, and (iii) patients with high quality anticoagulation control with warfarin.METHODS AND RESULTS: A fixed-effects network meta-analysis was conducted, including data from four Phase III randomised controlled trials (>70,000 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation). The results of the base-case analysis comparing NOACs with warfarin were broadly in line with the results from the individual trials. Results from the three subgroup analyses were broadly similar to the base case results. For example in patients with CHADS2 score ≥2, apixaban, high-dose dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and high-dose edoxaban had significantly lower hazards of stroke/systemic embolism compared with low-dose edoxaban. Apixaban and low-dose edoxaban were associated with significantly lower hazards of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban and dabigatran 150mg. However, several treatment comparisons that were significant in the base-case analysis were not significant in the patient subgroups, due to the reduced sample size of the subgroups compared with the overall population.CONCLUSIONS: Among the NOACs, apixaban offered the most favourable efficacy and safety profile in the overall patient population as well as in the three subgroups investigated.

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared with to warfarin, current standard of care, for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Japan. Methods A previously published lifetime Markov model was adapted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin in patients with NVAF in Japan. In the same model, the costs associated with each clinical event and background mortality were replaced with Japanese data. Whenever available, some of the utility parameters were derived from Japanese published literature. Lifetime horizon was selected to evaluate the value of the treatment benefit (stroke prevention) against potential risks (such as major bleedings) among patients with NVAF. Direct medical cost, long-term care cost, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the payers’ perspective. Findings Compared with warfarin, treatment with apixaban was estimated to increase life expectancy by 0.231 year or 0.240 QALYs while treatment cost increased by ¥511,692 (US $5117 at an exchange rate of US $1 = ¥100). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ¥2,135,743 per QALY (US $21,357 per QALY). On the basis of the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set at approximately ≥¥2,250,000 (US $22,500) per QALY, the probability of apixaban being cost-effective was ≥50%. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥5,000,000 (US $50,000) and ¥6,700,000 (US $67,000) in Japan, the probability of apixaban being cost-effective was 85% and 91%, respectively. Conclusion Although most participants in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial used for the efficacy data of apixaban in the model were non-Japanese patients, the impact of the limitations on our results was considered small, and our results were deemed robust because of the additional effect in Japanese patients compared with that in the global population according to the subanalysis of Japanese patients in the trial. Therefore, based on an adaptation of a published Markov model, apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in Japan for stroke prevention among patients with NVAF.

The results of a study to estimate the economic costs of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized nonsurgical patients during initial admissions and subsequent to hospital discharge are presented.Using a database linking admission records from more than 150 U.S. hospitals to health insurance claims, 49,948 patients 40 years of age or older who were hospitalized at least once during a 6-year period for diagnoses other than VTE or traumatic injury and who met other inclusion criteria were identified. Costs were tallied from the index admission to postdischarge day 180 for patients with and patients without evidence of VTE. Ordinary least-squares regression was used to estimate the independent relationship between VTE and total health care costs, controlling for differences in patient characteristics.Two hundred forty-two patients (0.5%) had VTE during the index admission, 317 (0.6%) had VTE after the index admission discharge; in total, 559 (1.1%) had VTE through postdischarge day 180. Among the 242 patients with VTE during their index admission, the adjusted mean total health care costs over 180 days were $17,848 higher than among those without VTE ($47,416 versus $29,568, p0.001); for the 317 patients with postdischarge VTE, the adjusted mean total 180-day costs were $51,863 higher than for those without postdischarge VTE ($74,136 versus $22,273, p0.001).Among medically ill patients admitted to the hospital, health care costs were significantly higher among those who developed VTE during hospitalization or after discharge compared with those who did not develop VTE.

History of chronic lung diseases and household coal use for heating and cooking are established risk factors of lung cancer; however, few studies have been able to explore these risk factors simultaneously. Xuanwei, China, has some of the highest rates of lung cancer in China and most residents experience substantial in-home coal smoke exposures. Using a population-based case-control study of 498 lung cancer cases and 498 age-matched controls, we evaluated the risk of lung cancer in relation to coal smoke exposure and history of chronic lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, tuberculosis (TB), chronic bronchitis, and emphysema. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by conditional logistic regression adjusting for potential confounders. We observed an increased risk of lung cancer with history of any chronic lung disease among males (OR = 14.2; 95%CI = 4.3-46.9), females (OR = 2.6; 95%CI = 1.1-6.3), smokers (OR = 12.7; 95%CI = 3.5-45.8), and nonsmokers (OR = 2.6; 95%CI = 1.1-6.4). Specifically, TB (OR = 83.7; 95%CI = 11.0-634.7), COPD (OR = 3.2; 95%CI = 1.7-6.0), and emphysema and chronic bronchitis (OR = 3.3; 95%CI = 1.7-6.4) were associated with increased risks. These findings suggest that history of chronic lung diseases may also increase risk of lung cancer in populations with indoor coal smoke exposures.

Nilesh J Goswami,1 Mitch DeKoven,2 Andreas Kuznik,3 Jack Mardekian,3 Michelle R Krukas,2 Larry Z Liu,3,4 Patrick Bailey,1 Cynthia Deitrick,5 John Vincent3 1Prairie Heart Cardiovascular Consultants, Springfield, IL, USA; 2Health Economics and Outcomes Research, IMS Health, Alexandria, VA, USA; 3Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 4Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA; 5Prairie Heart Education and Research Cooperative, Springfield, IL, USA Background: This trial evaluated the effectiveness of an integrated intervention program that included a 3-to-5-minute nurse counseling session, copay relief cards, and a monthly newsletter on adherence to atorvastatin treatment. Methods and results: A prospective, integrated (composed of nurse counseling, adherence tip sheet, copay relief card, opportunity to enroll in 12-week cholesterol management program) randomized interventional study was designed involving patients >21 years of age who were prescribed atorvastatin at a large single-specialty cardiovascular physician practice in Illinois from March 2010 to May 2011. Data from the practice's electronic medical record were matched/merged to IMS Health's longitudinal data. A total of 500 patients were enrolled (125 in the control arm; 375 in the intervention arm). After data linkage, 53 control patients and 155 intervention patients were included in the analysis. Results: Mean age was 67.8 years (control) and 69.5 years (intervention); 67.9% and 58.7%, respectively, were male. The mean 6-month adherence rate was 0.82 in both arms. The mean proportion of days covered for both the new-user control and intervention groups was the same, averaging 0.70 day (standard deviation [SD], 0.27 day); for continuing users, the proportion of days covered for the control group was 0.83 (SD, 0.24) and for the intervention group was 0.84 (SD, 0.22). For continuing users, the control group had mean persistent days of 151.6 (SD, 50.2) compared with 150.9 days (SD, 50.9) for the intervention group. New users had fewer persistent days (control 111.4 days, SD, 69.6 days; intervention 112.0 days, SD, 58.8 days) compared with continuing users. The Cox proportional hazards model of the risk of discontinuation with index therapy was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups (hazard ratio 0.83, P = 0.55). Conclusion: The integrated intervention program did not significantly improve atorvastatin adherence relative to usual care in the studied patient population. Keywords: adherence, randomized clinical trial, atorvastatin

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapies are a mainstay of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet high member out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for such therapies may limit patient access to these therapies.To understand whether there is a relationship between OOP costs and the initial fill and subsequent refills of biologic DMARD treatments for RA members.Members of a national Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan with an adjudicated (paid or reversed) claim for a biologic DMARD indicated for RA were identified from July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2012, and followed retrospectively. The first adjudicated claim date was the index date. Members were required to have 180 days of continuous enrollment pre- and post-index and ≥ 1 diagnosis for RA (ICD-9-CM: 714.0 or 714.2) during pre-index or ≤ 30 days post-index. Low-income subsidy and Medicaid-Medicare dual-eligible patients were excluded. The analysis used multivariate regression models to examine associations between initial prescription (Rx) abandonment rates and OOP costs and factors influencing the refill of a biologic DMARD therapy based on pharmacy claims.The final sample size included 864 MAPD members with an adjudicated claim for a biologic DMARD. The majority were female (77.4%) and mean age was 63.5 years (SD = 10.9). Most (78%) had conventional nonbiologic DMARD utilization during pre-index. The overall initial abandonment rate was 18.2% for biologic DMARDs, ranging from 1.3% for the lowest OOP cost group ($0-$250) to 32.7% for the highest OOP cost group ($550; P0.0001 for Cochran-Armitage trend test). ORs for abandonment rose from 18.4 to 32.7 to 41.2 for OOP costs of $250.01-$400.00, $400.01-$550.00, and$550.00 respectively, relative to OOP costs of ≤ $250.00 (all P0.0001). Meeting the catastrophic coverage limit and utilization of a specialty pharmacy for the index claim were both associated with a decreased likelihood of abandoning therapy (OR = 0.29 and OR = 0.14, respectively; both P0.05). Among the subset of 533 members with a paid claim, 82.4% had at least 1 refill post-index. The negative association between OOP cost and likelihood of refilling an Rx was highly significant (P0.0001).This study suggests that the higher the member OOP cost, the less likely an MAPD member is to initiate or refill a biologic DMARD therapy for RA. Further research is needed to understand reasons for initial Rx abandonment and lack of refills, including benefit design and adverse events.

Poor adherence to efficacious cardiovascular-related medications has led to considerable morbidity, mortality, and avoidable health care costs. This article provides results of a recent think-tank meeting in which various stakeholder groups representing key experts from consumers, community health providers, the academic community, decision-making government officials (Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, etc), and industry scientists met to evaluate the current status of medication adherence and provide recommendations for improving outcomes. Below, we review the magnitude of the problem of medication adherence, prevalence, impact, and cost. We then summarize proven effective approaches and conclude with a discussion of recommendations to address this growing and significant public health issue of medication nonadherence.

The study objective was to compare dose-equivalence, adherence and subsequent switch rates among patients recently switched from a branded to generic version of the same statin (generic substitution, GS) vs. those switched from branded statin to generic version of a different statin (therapeutic substitution, TS).In a retrospective cohort analysis among adult enrollees in over 90 US health plans, the authors identified adult patients who switched from a branded to generic statin from July-December 2006 (simvastatin became generic in June 2006). Patients were classified by type of statin switch: GS (e.g., branded simvastatin --generic simvastatin), and TS (e.g., branded atorvastatin --generic simvastatin). Demographic and clinical data were collected from claims before switch through 6 months follow-up. Separate outcomes of interest included proportion of patients that switched to a less potent daily dose, that switched back to previous branded statin after switch, and that were at least 80% adherent during the 6 months after initial switch. Significant predictors of each clinical outcome were identified using multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for differences between groups in covariates and potential confounders.The 6-month TS (n = 3807) and GS (n = 40,165) groups were generally similar demographically. Compared to GS, TS patients were significantly more likely to be switched to a less potent dose (26.2% vs. 0.5%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] in patients with high-potency index medication = 83.4, p0.0001); 33% less likely to be adherent in the 6 months after switch (67.7% vs. 75.9%, AOR in patients with no switch in first 6 months follow-up = 0.67, p0.0001); and four times more likely to switch back to previous branded statin (11.3% vs. 2.9%, AOR = 4.1, p0.0001).This study did not account for co-payment changes, lipid measurements, or changes in pill burden.While this study did not have data on why patients had TS (e.g., for cost or clinical reasons), TS was more likely to involve a subsequent disruption to statin therapy than GS. TS could potentially lead to adverse impacts on patients' outcomes, and should be studied further.

Summary Background In rural Xuanwei County, China, the high incidence of lung cancer is attributable largely to burning smoky coal indoors for heating and cooking without adequate ventilation. Such burning generates very high levels of indoor air pollutants, including carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which could contaminate foodstuffs in the home. Thus, residents could be exposed to carcinogenic coal emissions not only via inhalation but also via ingestion of these foodstuffs. Methods A population-based case–control study of 498 lung cancer patients and 498 controls was conducted from 1985 through 1990 in Xuanwei. The interviewer-administered study questionnaire queried the frequency of food items commonly consumed in this region. Overall and sex-specific multiple logistic regression models were constructed to estimate Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for consumption of these foods. Results Intake of rice, green vegetables, mushrooms and fresh meat was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. In contrast, intake of corn, buckwheat, radishes, peppers, melons, pickled vegetables, and salt-preserved meats was associated with reduced risk. The detrimental effect of ingesting green vegetables (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.28–4.48) is consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings suggest that in Xuanwei, food contamination by environmental polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons may be an important risk factor for lung cancer, and that differential contamination of foods by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons possibly explained the different associations with lung cancer risk.

In clinical practice, persistence with statin therapy is poor. While little is known about relative persistence to specific statins, previous studies have observed greater persistence in patients who achieve greater degrees of lipid lowering. Identification of statin therapies which improve patient persistence has the potential to improve the quality of patient care and clinical outcomes. Therefore, we assessed patient persistence with atorvastatin and simvastatin in primary and secondary prevention patients enrolled in managed care.New statin users agedor =18 years, both with and without prior cardiovascular (CV) events within the 12 month pre-treatment period, were identified from a large national database of managed care patients. Patients initiated atorvastatin or simvastatin therapy from January 1, 2003 to September 30, 2005 and were continuously enrolled in a covered plan for at least 12 months before and after initiation of statin therapy. Subanalyses of patientsor =65 years were also conducted. Measures of interest included demographic and clinical characteristics of the study samples and persistence of statin utilization over the 1-year follow-up period. Persistence was defined as the number of days a patient remained on treatment in the first year following their index date, measured from the date of first fill to study end or the date of discontinuation.A total of 129 764 atorvastatin users and 45 558 simvastatin users without prior CV events were included in the study. For those patients with prior CV events, a total of 6888 atorvastatin users and 4443 simvastatin users were included in the study. Median persistence in patients without prior CV events was 50 days longer for patients initiating therapy with atorvastatin than simvastatin (207 vs. 157 days, p0.0001) and after adjusting for confounding factors, those treated with atorvastatin were 15% less likely to discontinue therapy during the first year than those treated with simvastatin (HR=0.85; 95% CI 0.84, 0.86; p0.001). In secondary prevention patients median persistence was 85 days longer in atorvastatin patients than simvastatin patients (266 vs. 181 days, p0.0001) and atorvastatin patients were 22% less likely to discontinue therapy (HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.75, 0.82; p0.001). Persistence was worse in the elderly patients, but the relative difference between atorvastatin and simvastatin was similar to the overall patient population.In patients with and without prior CV disease, persistence is generally poor, even worse in the elderly, but significantly better for atorvastatin patients than simvastatin patients (p0.001). Further studies are required to determine whether this is due to differences in cost, effectiveness, side-effects, or other attributes of the statins.Differences in persistence could be, in part, due to unmeasured confounders although all available variables were adjusted in multivariate analyses. Additionally, the claims database lacks some clinical data such as lipid levels, limiting assessments of statin efficacy, and does not include any reasons for discontinuation of therapy.

The clinical literature suggests that atorvastatin therapy achieves a reduction in major cardiovascular events within the first year of therapy. Aside from obvious clinical benefits, economic advantage may also result from this observation. The present analysis modeled the clinical and economic consequences of initiating atorvastatin versus generic simvastatin in defined US managed care organization patient populations.A cost-consequence model was developed to estimate the differential rate and associated costs of cardiovascular events occurring over 2 years using real world price and adherence data. Four defined patient populations were included from representative atorvastatin trials: (1) diabetes mellitus; (2) multiple risk factors; (3) coronary heart disease; and (4) acute coronary syndrome. Costs of care included drug costs and costs of managing cardiovascular events. Univariate sensitivity analyses and multivariate sensitivity analysis via Monte Carlo simulation were conducted to test the robustness of the results.The number of cardiovascular events avoided per 100,000 patients initiated on atorvastatin as compared with simvastatin, and total treatment costs.The model predicts that, relative to simvastatin, atorvastatin will prevent 941 (95% confidence interval [CI] 481-1367) cardiovascular events after 1 year and 1426 (95% CI 833-1987) events after 2 years, per 100,000 patients. This is expected to reduce the cost of cardiovascular events by $365 (95% CI $192-$527) and $552 (95% CI $327-$763) per patient (US$ 2006), respectively, offsetting 80% and 75% of the medication cost difference between atorvastatin and simvastatin after 1 and 2 years, respectively. The incremental costs associated with atorvastatin treatment were estimated at $94 (95% CI -$68 to $267) and $175 (95% CI -$37 to $399) per patient after 1 and 2 years, respectively. Results were sensitive to assumptions regarding simvastatin efficacy and drug acquisition costs.Although the present analysis is based in part on indirect comparisons and on trials not designed or statistically powered to specifically test the early benefits hypothesis, it suggests that atorvastatin's assumed early reduction of cardiovascular events partly offsets the acquisition price difference between atorvastatin and generic simvastatin in various groups of high-risk patients newly initiated on statin treatment.

To gain a better understanding of the epidemiology, microbiology, and outcomes of early-onset, culture-positive, community-acquired, healthcare-associated, and hospital-acquired bloodstream infections.We analyzed a large U.S. database (Cardinal Health, MediQual, formerly MedisGroups) to identify patients with bacterial or fungal bloodstream isolates from 2002 to 2003.The data set included administrative and clinical variables (physiologic, laboratory, culture, and other clinical) from 59 hospitals. Bloodstream infections were identified in those hospitals collecting clinical and culture data for at least the first 5 days of admission.Patients with bloodstream infection within 2 days of admission were classified as having community-acquired bloodstream infection. Those with a prior hospitalization within 30 days, transfer from another facility, ongoing chemotherapy, or long-term hemodialysis were classified as having healthcare-associated bloodstream infection. Bloodstream infections that developed after day 2 of admission were classified as hospital-acquired bloodstream infection. A total of 6,697 patients were identified as having bloodstream infection.None.Healthcare-associated bloodstream infection accounted for more than half (55.3%) of all bloodstream infections. Nearly two thirds (62.3%) of hospitalized patients with bloodstream infection suffered from either hospital-acquired bloodstream infection or healthcare-associated bloodstream infection and had higher morbidity and mortality rates than those with community-acquired bloodstream infection. Of all bloodstream infection pathogens, fungal organisms were associated with the highest crude mortality, longest length of stay in hospital, and greatest total charges. Of all bacterial bloodstream infections, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was associated with the highest crude mortality rate (22.5%), the longest mean length of stay (11.1 +/- 10.7 days), and the highest median total charges ($36,109). After we controlled for confounding factors, methicillin-resistant S. aureus was associated with the highest independent mortality risk (odds ratio 2.70; confidence interval 2.03-3.58). S. aureus was the most commonly encountered pathogen in all types of early-onset bacteremia.Healthcare-associated bloodstream infection constitutes a distinct entity of bloodstream infection with its unique epidemiology, microbiology, and outcomes. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carries the highest relative mortality risk among all pathogens.

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin in the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Methods: A retrospective decision-analytic model was applied to pooled data from 2 prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind studies, and claims data from a large health plan (3.3 million members) located in the Mid-Atlantic region. Using hospital claims for patients in the health plan with suspected NP, we then determined their daily billed (submitted) hospital charges for 4 mutually exclusive potential health outcomes of linezolid or vancomycin treatment: survival with bacteremia, survival without bacteremia, nonsurvival with bacteremia, and nonsurvival without bacteremia. To generate the expected total daily billed hospital charge for each drug-treatment group, we weighted the determined daily billed hospital charges by the probabilities of each outcome developing in each treatment arm, as derived from the clinical-trial data. Drug acquisition costs were then incorporated, and the difference in expected total costs relative to the difference in rates of survival between the linezolid and vancomycin arms was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for linezolid. Results: Costs were higher for nonsurviving patients compared with surviving patients. Estimated median daily billed treatment charges were $2888 for linezolid and $2993 for vancomycin. Based on Monte Carlo simulations, the respective 95% CIs were $2671 to $3106 and $2615 to $3372. Using mean treatment durations of 11.3 and 10.7 days, respectively, we obtained expected total hospitalization charges of $32,636 for linezolid treatment (95% CI, $30,182–$35,098), compared with $32,024 for vancomycin treatment (95% CI, $27,978–$36,078). The ICER for linezolid per life saved was $3600. Conclusions: The higher acquisition cost of linezolid was almost completely offset by improved survival and a reduction in health care costs associated with improved survival. As a result, linezolid was almost cost-neutral compared with vancomycin in the treatment of NP caused by MRSA.

Background: In clinical trials, linezolid has demonstrated higher clinical cure rates and shorter hospital duration for patients than has vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs). Objective: To assess economic outcomes of linezolid versus vancomycin and evaluate determinants of treatment costs for cSSTIs. Methods: Economic data were obtained from US subjects enrolled in a multinational, open-label, clinical trial of cSSTIs caused by suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Subjects were randomized to receive intravenous or oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin for 7–21 days. Costs for each patient were evaluated by applying nationally representative per diem hospital costs by hospital ward. Intravenous administration costs were applied to the duration of intravenous treatment. Factors contributing to the cost of therapy were evaluated using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Seven hundred seventeen US patients were included in the study. Demographics were similar between treatment groups. Length of stay and duration of intravenous therapy were shorter for linezolid-treated patients. Mean ± SD cost for intent-to-treat population patients treated with linezolid versus vancomycin was $4865 ± 4367 versus $5738 ± 5190, respectively (p = 0.017), and in the MRSA population was $4881 ± 3987 versus $6006 ± 5039, respectively (p = 0.041). Factors significantly associated with increased cost included vancomycin therapy, age, and comorbidities, including diabetes. After adjusting for all other factors, treatment with linezolid was associated with significantly lower treatment costs compared with vancomycin. Conclusions: Linezolid therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes and significantly lower treatment costs than was vancomycin. The largest cost advantage was demonstrated in patients with documented MRSA cSSTIs.

Context: Traditionally, pneumonia developing in patients outside the hospital is categorized as community acquired, even if these patients have been receiving health care in an outpatient facility. Accumulating evidence suggests that health-care–associated infections are distinct from those that are truly community acquired. Objective: To characterize the microbiology and outcomes among patients with culture-positive community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), health-care–associated pneumonia (HCAP), hospitalacquired pneumonia (HAP), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Design and setting: A retrospective cohort study based on a large US inpatient database. Patients: A total of 4,543 patients with culture-positive pneumonia admitted into 59 US hospitals between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003, and recorded in a large, multi-institutional database of US acute-care hospitals (Cardinal Health-Atlas Research Database; Cardinal Health Clinical Knowledge Services; Marlborough, MA). Main measures: Culture data (respiratory and blood), in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), and billed hospital charges. Results: Approximately one half of hospitalized patients with pneumonia had CAP, and > 20% had HCAP. Staphylococcus aureus was a major pathogen in all pneumonia types, with its occurrence markedly higher in the non-CAP groups than in the CAP group. Mortality rates associated with HCAP (19.8%) and HAP (18.8%) were comparable (p > 0.05), and both were significantly higher than that for CAP (10%, all p < 0.0001) and lower than that for VAP (29.3%, all p < 0.0001). Mean LOS varied significantly with pneumonia category (in order of ascending values: CAP, HCAP, HAP, and VAP; all p < 0.0001). Similarly, mean hospital charge varied significantly with pneumonia category (in order of ascending value: CAP, HCAP, HAP, and VAP; all p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The present analysis justified HCAP as a new category of pneumonia. S aureus was a major pathogen of all pneumonias with higher rates in non-CAP pneumonias. Compared with CAP, non-CAP was associated with more severe disease, higher mortality rate, greater LOS, and increased cost. (CHEST 2005; 128:3854–3862)

Background: Recent guidelines of EAS/ESC as well as AHA/ACC recommend LDL-C

Background: The objective of the second Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS II) was to document use of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), LDL-C target value attainment (LDL-C

Background: The objective of the second Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS II) was to document LDL-C goal attainment among patients with documented coronary heart disease (CHD) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: The CHD cohort of DYSIS II included patients from 17 countries of Asia

Background: Although chronic statin treatment is well established, LDL-Chol goal attainment (

Background: Increasingly sedentary lifestyles and dietary changes associated with economic development in China, combined with progress in the treatment of infectious disease have resulted in a shift in the disease burden - the so-called epidemiological transition. Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease (CHD) and other non-communicable diseases now play an increasingly important role in the disease burden faced by China. However, little is known about the future burden of CHD morbidity and mortality, as well as the cost-effectiveness of particular CHD-prevention policies in China. Objectives: To estimate the impact of aging and epidemiological transition on the burden of CHD morbidity and mortality over the next 15 years in China and to estimate the net value of effective lipid management. Methods: First, we estimate the prevalence of CHD and other risk factors based on the China Health and Nutrition Survey. Next, using prediction from the literature regarding trends in demographic and cardiovascular risk factors, such as elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), we model how CHD risk will evolve between 2015 and 2030. We then estimate how expanded use of statins for lipid management over the next 15 years would alter the prevalence of elevated LDL-C as a risk factor, and determine how this would dampen the future growth in CHD burden. Accounting for the costs of statin use, we assess the net value of a policy that expands statin utilization for lipid management in China. Results: We find that - left unchecked - rising prevalence of CHD risk factors and the aging of the Chinese population will lead to the incidence of heart attacks rising from 4 million in 2015 to over 6 million in 2030. Similarly, the number of CHD deaths will rise from 1.3 million in 2015 to over 2 million in 2030. Treating all hyperlipidemia patients with statins would avert 10.5 million heart attacks and 3.5 million CHD deaths between 2015 and 2030. Based on current estimates of treatment costs in China and the cost of statins, we predict that such a policy would produce a net social value of $176 to $226 billion over the next 15 years. Conclusions: In light of its aging population and continued economic development, China faces near-certain increases in the incidence of CHD morbidity and mortality. Preventative measures such as effective lipid management may reduce the CVD burden substantially and also provide large social value to the society. At a time when the Chinese government is taking steps towards a more systematic approach to health care delivery, primary and secondary prevention of CVD should be high on the agenda.

Objectives Lung cancer rates in Xuanwei are the highest in China. In-home use of smoky coal has been associated with lung cancer risk, and the association of smoking and lung cancer risk strengthened after stove improvement. Here, we explored the differential association of tobacco use and lung cancer risk by the intensity, duration, and type of coal used. Materials and methods We conducted a population-based case-control study of 260 male lung cancer cases and 260 age-matched male controls. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for tobacco use was calculated by conditional logistic regression. Results Use of smoky coal was significantly associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, and tobacco use was weakly and non-significantly associated with lung cancer risk. When the association was assessed by coal use, the cigarette-lung cancer risk association was null in hazardous coal users and elevated in less hazardous smoky coal users and non-smoky coal users. The risk of lung cancer per cigarette per day decreased as annual use of coal increased (>0–3 tons: OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.03–1.17; >3 tons: OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95–1.03). Among more hazardous coal users, attenuation occured at even low levels of usage (>0–3 tons: OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.91–1.14; >3 tons: OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.97–1.03). Conclusion We found evidence that smoky coal attenuated the tobacco and lung cancer risk association in males that lived in Xuanwei, particularly among users of hazardous coal where even low levels of smoky coal attenuated the association. Our results suggest that the adverse effects of tobacco may become more apparent as China's population continues to switch to cleaner fuels for the home, underscoring the urgent need for smoking cessation in China and elsewhere.

Aims Warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), has been the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Aspirin is recommended for low-risk patients and those unsuitable for warfarin. Apixaban is an oral anticoagulant that has demonstrated better efficacy than warfarin and aspirin in the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES studies, respectively, and causes less bleeding than warfarin. We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of apixaban against warfarin and aspirin from the perspective of the UK payer perspective. Results and methods A lifetime Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients, respectively. Clinical events considered in the model include ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleed, clinically relevant non-major bleed, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization and treatment discontinuations; data from the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials and published mortality rates and event-related utility rates were used in the model. Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with warfarin and aspirin. These gains were expected to be achieved at a drug acquisition-related cost increase over lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £11 909 and £7196 per QALY gained with apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to a wide range of inputs. Conclusions Based on randomized trial data, apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and aspirin, in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients with AF, respectively.

Bao Liu,1 Larry Z Liu,2,3 Jianwei Xuan,2 Man Luo,4 Yansheng Li,5 Chaohui Duan,6 Hongqin Cheng,7 Xiaohui Yang81School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 2Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 3Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA; 4Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 5Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 6The Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 7Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 8Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital University of Medical Science, Beijing, People’s Republic of ChinaBackground: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke. This study assessed treatment patterns associated with stroke prevention among patients with AF in three major cities of the People’s Republic of China.Methods: A random sample of 2,862 medical charts for patients with AF at six tertiary hospitals located in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou between 2003 and 2008 were reviewed. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were extracted from medical charts. Antithrombotic regimens included antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and a combination of both. Descriptive analyses were performed to summarize basic antithrombotic patterns. A logistic regression model examined demographic and clinical factors associated with antithrombotic treatment patterns.Results: Of the patient sample, 55% were male, the average age was 72 years (49% ≥75 years), 15% had valvular AF, 78% had nonvalvular AF, and the remainder had unspecified AF. CHADS2 scores ≥2 were reported for 53% of patients. Antithrombotic treatment was not received by 17% of patients during hospitalization, and 66% did not receive warfarin. Among patients with valvular or nonvalvular AF, 33%, 30%, and 20% received antiplatelet, anticoagulation, and antiplatelet plus anticoagulation treatments, respectively. For patients with CHADS2 scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4, 52%, 42%, 28%, 21%, and 21%, respectively, were treated with warfarin. Predictors of no antithrombotic treatment included age and hospital location.Conclusion: Anticoagulation therapy was underused in Chinese patients with AF. Antithrombotic treatment was not associated with stroke risk. Further studies need to examine the clinical consequences of various antithrombotic treatment patterns in Chinese patients with AF.Keywords: atrial fibrillation, stroke prevention, antithrombotic treatment, China

Analysis of claims data from 46,076 diabetic patients without cardiovascular disease initiating atorvastatin or simvastatin therapy suggested that, after adjusting for demographic and clinical confounders, use of atorvastatin was associated with fewer cardiovascular events versus simvastatin at doses of similar potency (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80–0.97, P =0.01).

Background— Many hospitalized medically ill patients are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk factors include prior VTE, older age, immobility, obesity, cardiac or respiratory failure, and cancer (at-risk patients). Although guidelines recommend use of VTE prophylaxis for at-risk patients, many may not receive it. Methods and Results— Using a database linking admission records from >150 US hospitals to health insurance claims, we identified people ≥40 years of age, hospitalized from 2003 to 2008. We excluded patients who: (1) were treated for VTE or hospitalized in the previous 30 days; (2) were admitted for traumatic injury or surgery; (3) had hypercoagulability at admission; or (4) received therapeutic dosages of low-molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, or fondaparinux at admission. We examined the use of VTE prophylaxis (both pharmacological and nonpharmacological) on day 1 or 2 in hospital among at-risk patients; predictors of receipt of prophylaxis were examined using multivariate logistic regression. The study population consisted of 49 948 patients, of whom 34 374 (69%) were at risk. Only 18% of at-risk patients received VTE prophylaxis on day 1 or 2 in hospital, typically with low-molecular weight heparin (56% of patients receiving prophylaxis), intermittent pneumatic compression (25%), warfarin (16%), or graduated compression stockings (11%). Use of prophylaxis exceeded 25% only in patients admitted from nursing homes and those with prior VTE. Although there were several significant predictors of receipt of VTE prophylaxis, model discrimination was relatively poor (C-statistic=0.61). Conclusion— The majority of at-risk hospitalized medically ill patients do not receive VTE prophylaxis.

Statins are considered a clinically important breakthrough for the treatment of cardiovascular disease. However, their social value at the US population level has not previously been studied. From an economic perspective, social value measures the quantity of resources--in monetary terms--that society would be willing to give up in order to retain the survival gains resulting from statin therapy. Using combined population and clinical data, this article calculates statins' social value to consumers, or the value of survival benefits above actual payments for the drug, and to producers, or drug revenues, for the period 1987-2008. National survey data suggest that statin therapy reduced low-density lipoprotein levels by 18.8 percent, which translated into roughly 40,000 fewer deaths, 60,000 fewer hospitalizations for heart attacks, and 22,000 fewer hospitalizations for strokes in 2008. For people starting statin therapy in 1987-2008, consumers captured $947.4 billion (76 percent) of the total social value of the survival gains. Even greater consumer benefits could be achieved in the future if statins were prescribed in full compliance with cholesterol guidelines and patients adhered to prescribed regimens. In addition, statin costs are declining because of patent expirations. Policy makers should consider interventions at the patient and provider levels to encourage both therapy for untreated patients with high cholesterol and greater adherence after therapy is initiated.

Xuanwei, China, experiences some of the highest rates of lung cancer in China. While lung cancer risk has been linked to the household use of bituminous coal, no study has comprehensively evaluated the risk of lung cancer associated with the mining of this coal in Xuanwei. In Xuanwei, coal is typically extracted from underground mines, without ventilation, and transported to the surface using carts powered by manpower or electricity.We evaluated the risk of lung cancer and working as a coal miner, in the absence of diesel exhaust exposure, in a population-based case-control study of 260 male lung cancer cases and 260 age-matched male controls with information on occupational histories. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for working as a coal miner and years of working as a coal miner were calculated by conditional logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders, such as smoking and household coal use.We observed an increased risk of lung cancer among coal miners (OR = 2.7; 95%CI = 1.3-5.6) compared to noncoal miners. Further, a dose-response relationship was observed for the risk of lung cancer and the number of years working as a coal miner (P(trend) = 0.02), with those working as miners for more than 10 years experiencing an almost fourfold increased risk (OR = 3.8; 95%CI = 1.4-10.3) compared to noncoal miners.These findings suggest that coal mining in Xuanwei may be a risk factor for lung cancer.

Contemporary clinical decision making is well supported by a wide variety of information sources, including clinical practice guidelines, position papers, and insights from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Much of our fundamental understanding of cardiovascular risk factors is based on multiple observations from major epidemiologic studies, such as The Seven Country Studies and the US-based Framingham Heart Study. These studies provided the framework for the development of clinical practice guidelines, including the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel series. The objective of this article is to highlight the value of observational studies as a complement to clinical trial data for clinical decision making in real-world practice. Although RCTs are still the benchmark for assessing clinical efficacy and safety of a specific therapeutic approach, they may be of limited utility to practitioners who must then adapt the lessons learned from the trial into the patient care environment. The use of well-structured observational studies can improve our understanding of the translation of clinical trials into clinical practice, as demonstrated here with the example of statins. Although such studies have their own limitations, improved techniques for design and analysis have reduced the impact of bias and confounders. The introduction of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines has provided more uniformity for such studies. When used together with RCTs, observational studies can enhance our understanding of effectiveness and utility in real-world clinical practice. In the examples of statin observational studies, the results suggest that relative effectiveness of different statins and potential impact of switching statins should be carefully considered in treating individual patients by practicing physicians.

The objective of this study was to examine whether differences in effectiveness exist between statins in hypertensive patients seen in clinical practice. We assessed cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in hypertensive patients without cardiovascular disease who began therapy with atorvastatin (10 or 20 mg/d) or simvastatin (20 or 40 mg/d) between January 1, 2003, and September 30, 2005, using claims data from 92 US managed care plans in the PharMetrics database. A total of 98,471 hypertensive patients were identified, comprising 74,685 atorvastatin users (mean dose 13.6 mg/d) and 23,786 simvastatin users (mean dose 28.6 mg/d), and followed a median 1.5 years for the occurrence of a first CV event. The crude CV event rates were 2.81 and 3.92 per 100 person-years for atorvastatin and simvastatin, respectively [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.78, P < 0.001]. After adjusting for clinical and demographic confounders, use of atorvastatin was associated with fewer CV events compared with simvastatin (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84-0.98, P = 0.009). However, the lipid-lowering efficacy of the 2 statins could not be assessed as patient lipid data were unavailable. In conclusion, hypertensive patients without cardiovascular disease who initiated atorvastatin (10 or 20 mg/d) had a significantly lower risk of subsequent CV events compared with those who initiated simvastatin at doses of similar potency (20 or 40 mg/d). As with all observational studies, the study is subject to certain limitations, and the findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating.

Since generic simvastatin became available in the United States in 2006, approximately one million patients have switched from atorvastatin to simvastatin. We examined the association between switching from atorvastatin to simvastatin and changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in clinical practice. We compared atorvastatin-treated patients at high cardiovascular risk who switched to simvastatin between June 2006 and July 2007 with randomly selected matched patients who remained on atorvastatin and evaluated changes in LDL-C and percentage of patients reaching LDL-C less than 100 mg/dL. Of patients who switched from atorvastatin to simvastatin, the majority were excluded as a result of lack of LDL-C measurements, leaving 383 patients in the analysis. Among these, 122 (31.9%) switched to a simvastatin dose that was less than therapeutically equivalent to their prior atorvastatin dose. Compared with control subjects, switched patients were less likely to reach an LDL-C less than 100 mg/dL (68.4% versus 74.0%; odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.99; P = 0.041) and had higher measured LDL-C (91.4 versus 87.2 mg/dL; P = 0.009). Switched patients who were not prescribed a higher milligram dose of simvastatin were significantly less likely to reach an LDL-C less than 100 mg/dL (62.3% versus 74.0%; odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.84; P = 0.006) and had higher LDL-C (95.1 versus 87.2 mg/dL; P = 0.002) than control subjects. A large proportion of patients who switch from atorvastatin to simvastatin are prescribed doses that are not therapeutically equivalent, and these patients were significantly less likely to meet LDL-C treatment goals compared with patients who remained on atorvastatin.

Lung cancer rates in Xuanwei County have been among the highest in China for both males and females and have been causally associated with exposure to indoor smoky (bituminous) coal emissions that contain very high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. There are numerous coal mines across the County. Although lung cancer risk is strongly associated with the use of smoky coal as a whole, variation in risk by smoky coal subtype has not been characterized as yet. We conducted a population-based case-control study of 498 lung cancer cases and 498 controls, individually matched to case subjects on age (+/-2 years) and sex to examine risk by coal subtype. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for coal subtype were calculated by conditional logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders. Overall, smoky coal use was positively and statistically significantly associated with lung cancer risk, when compared with the use of smokeless coal or wood (OR = 7.7, 95% CI = 4.5-13.3). Furthermore, there was a marked heterogeneity in risk estimates for specific subtypes of smoky coal (test for heterogeneity: p = 5.17 x 10(-10)). Estimates were highest for coal of the Laibin (OR = 24.8, 95% CI = 12.4-49.6) and Longtan (OR = 11.6, 95% CI = 5.0-27.2) coal types and lower for coal from other subtypes. These findings strongly suggest that in Xuanwei and elsewhere, the carcinogenic potential of coal combustion products can exhibit substantial local variation by specific coal source.

The CARDS trial, a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial, found that atorvastatin 10 mg/day for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol significantly reduced cardiovascular (CV) events, including stroke. We estimated the cost effectiveness of atorvastatin as primary prevention against CV disease from the short-term and lifetime US payer perspectives. We constructed a decision analytic (Markov) model to evaluate long-term costs and outcomes for atorvastatin 10 mg/day versus no HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of a CV event. CV event rates and survival were based on risk equations calibrated to CARDS and applied to a US type 2 diabetes population; the atorvastatin effect on CV events was based on hazard ratios from CARDS; direct medical care costs were based on US treatment patterns and published costs analyses of patients with diabetes. Costs were valued in $US, year 2005 values; costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. Within the time horizon of the trial (5 years), the cost effectiveness of atorvastatin was $US137 276 per QALY. At 10 years, the incremental cost per QALY improved to $US3640 per QALY. At 25 years, overall costs were lower and QALYs higher in the atorvastatin arm. Costs of managing CV events were lower after 5 years for patients treated with atorvastatin. For patients with type 2 diabetes and one additional risk factor for CV disease, normal LDL-cholesterol and no history of a CV event, primary prevention with atorvastatin appears to be cost saving and improve outcomes over 25 years, although it is costly from a short-term US payer perspective. From both a medical and an economic viewpoint, primary prevention is desirable in this patient population.

While the results of randomized clinical trials have indicated that statins improve outcomes in patients without cardiovascular disease (CVD), it remains uncertain whether there are differences in efficacy between statins, particularly in clinical practice, where the public health implications could be substantial.We assessed cardiovascular (CV) outcomes among primary-prevention patients newly initiating therapy with atorvastatin or simvastatin.Using claims data from 92 US managed care plans, we identified new statin users without CVD who initiated atorvastatin (10 or 20 mg) or simvastatin (20 or 40 mg) from January 2003 to September 2005 and were continuously enrolled in a covered plan foror = 12 months before andor = 1 month after the initiation of statin therapy. The main outcome was the time to the first CV event (hospitalization related to myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary artery disease; stroke; amaurosis fugax; transient ischemic attack; peripheral or central nervous system vascular disease; or revascularization). Persistence with treatment was calculated in terms of the number of days during follow-up that a patient remained on statin treatment, starting from the date of the first prescription fill to the end of the study or the date at which therapy was discontinued.A total of 168,973 patients initiating atorvastatin (mean dose, 13.5 mg) and 50,658 patients initiating simvastatin (mean dose, 28.5 mg) were followed for a median of 1.5 years. Atorvastatin patients were significantly more persistent with treatment than simvastatin patients (median treatment duration, 158 vs 124 days, respectively; P0.001). After adjustment for age, sex, type of health plan, payer type, geographic region, calendar year of statin initiation, physician specialty, comorbidities, concomitant therapies, and total direct health care costs in the year before statin initiation, use of atorvastatin was associated with significantly fewer CV events compared with use of simvastatin (hazard ratio = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93; P0.001).In these patients without CVD, atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg was associated with a significantly lower risk of CV events compared with simvastatin 20 or 40 mg. Further studies are required to determine whether differences in persistence, achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, or other factors contribute to these differences in outcomes.

Patient switching of prescription drug brands within a therapeutic class has become more prevalent with tiered drug plan formularies. Although switching from more expensive brand name drugs to generic equivalents may reduce aggregate prescription costs, therapeutic benefit may be compromised if the patient is not switched to a drug with an equivalent therapeutic profile. This study examined whether patients switching from branded atorvastatin to either a branded or generic simvastatin were prescribed a therapeutically equivalent or higher dose, as opposed to a lower therapeutic dose.Study patients were selected from a national longitudinal database of 1.4 billion annual prescription drug claims. All patients active in the database during the study period (9/01/2005 to 9/30/2006) with a prescription drug claim for atorvastatin in the index month (9/2005) were selected. The 453,409 patients in the study period were followed for 12 months to determine the percent switching to simvastatin and their relative therapeutic doses after switching. Patients switching to the same or lower milligram dose of simvastatin were classified as receiving a lower therapeutic dose compared with their atorvastatin dosing.Among patients using atorvastatin at the beginning of the study, 13,530 (3%) switched to simvastatin by the end of the study period. Medication changes resulted in a lower therapeutic dose in 38% of the switches. The percent of switches resulting in a lower therapeutic dose were 18% for those switching from 10 mg, 43% for those switching from 20 mg, 73% for those switching from 40 mg, and 100% for those switching from 80 mg.A significant proportion of patients switching from atorvastatin to simvastatin received a lower therapeutic dose, which may have an adverse impact on patients' quality of care and health status. Further research is needed to assess the potential negative effect on patient outcomes.

Oral antibiotic therapy can reduce complications and costs compared with intravenous (IV) therapy. The object of this study was to determine the health economic and resource utilization effects of outpatient treatment with oral linezolid relative to IV vancomycin. Longitudinal claims data from 80 health care plans were used. Patients 18 years and older, who did not have osteomyelitis, with a pharmacy claim for linezolid or vancomycin between January 1, 2002 and March 31, 2004 were eligible. Clinical and resource utilization data were collected for 12 months before and 35 days after treatment. Patients treated with linezolid were matched with controls treated with vancomycin, based on propensity scoring. Direct medical costs paid by health plans were compared. A total of 1,048 matched pairs were identified. Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Patients with linezolid claims had lower resource utilization versus those with vancomycin claims during follow-up, including fewer mean physician office visits (4.1+/-5.7 vs. 8.4+/-13.8 visits; P.001); lab/diagnostic claims (6.3+/-18.0 vs. 10.4 +/-15.2 claims; P.001); pharmacy claims (7.3+/-8.1 vs. 13.6+/-17.4 claims; P.001); emergency room visits (9.7% vs. 13.9%; P= .003) and hospitalization (15.3% vs. 19.1%; P= .024). Patients receiving vancomycin were more likely to be hospitalized or have an emergency room visit than patients receiving linezolid. Mean total adjusted cost was 4,707 dollars less for linezolid compared with vancomycin (8,401dollars vs. 13,108 dollars; P.001). Similar trends were observed for patients matched based on complicated skin and soft tissue infection diagnosis. Outpatient treatment with oral linezolid was associated with significantly lower resource utilization and total medical costs compared with IV vancomycin.

This study compared the costs and hospital length of stay (LOS) and duration of intravenous therapy associated with intravenous/oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in elderly US patients.Data were obtained from elderly (or=65 years) US patients participating in a multinational randomized trial of hospitalized cSSTI patients treated with linezolid or vancomycin. Costs (hospital and total) from the provider perspective were estimated for intent-to-treat (ITT) patients (ie, all those receivingor=1 dose) using national 2003 costs (ward, medication, intravenous administration). LOS for inpatient care, duration of intravenous linezolid and vancomycin therapy (ITT and MRSA groups), and cure rates were evaluated.Of 717 enrolled subjects, 163 (23%) were elderly (87 linezolid, 76 vancomycin), with no significant differences in demographic characteristics between the linezolid and vancomycin groups. Mean hospitalization and total costs were lower with linezolid compared with vancomycin (hospitalization: US $4510 vs US $6478, P0.001; total: US $6009 vs US $7329, P=0.03). Linezolid was associated with a 3.5-day reduction in LOS and a 9.5-day reduction in the duration of intravenous therapy compared with vancomycin in the ITT group (both, P0.001). Cure rates were comparable between linezolid and vancomycin in both the ITT group (88.7% vs 81.4%, respectively) and the MRSA group (80.0% vs 71.4%). In multivariate analyses of the ITT group, linezolid patients were 57% less likely than vancomycin patients to have a LOS7 days (odds ratio = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.87). Chronic renal failure, malnutrition, and a diagnosis of infected ulcer predicted an LOS7 days.In this analysis of data from elderly patients with cSSTI caused by suspected or confirmed MRSA, linezolid treatment was associated with reductions in the costs of care, LOS, and duration of intravenous treatment without affecting the clinical outcomes. Although the use of a subset of patients from a larger trial that did not focus on the elderly can be seen as a study limitation, the elderly represent an important population when evaluating health care resource use and costs.

Migraine is a commonly occurring, chronic disorder that can cause significant disability. Eletriptan, a selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 1 receptor subtype B/D (5-HT1B/1D) agonist, is a clinically effective treatment for moderate to severe migraine. The objective of this literature review was to summarize the available data on the pharmacoeconomics of eletriptan relative to other triptans. Articles meeting the following three criteria were included in the review: 1) contained pharmacoeconomic data on a marketed dose of eletriptan; 2) included data on at least one other comparator triptan; and 3) was in English. A MEDLINE(®) search yielded a total of eight studies (from the European Union [n=5] and from the USA [n=3]) across multiple regions. Seven of the studies examined the pharmacoeconomics of eletriptan relative to other triptans, and a further study examined the health care costs of eletriptan 40 mg versus sumatriptan 100 mg. Eletriptan 40 mg was among a group of triptans, including rizatriptan 10 mg and almotriptan 12.5 mg, demonstrating the greatest cost-effectiveness. This result held across different definitions of efficacy (2 hours pain-free, sustained pain-free, and sustained pain-free with no adverse events) and also held when cost-effectiveness models accounted for second doses and use of rescue medication, management of adverse events, and productivity loss, in addition to drug acquisition costs. Only limited head-to-head comparator data were available. The majority of pharmacoeconomic studies utilized the same set of efficacy and/or tolerability data, and indirect costs were rarely included despite the fact that the majority of per capita migraine costs are attributable to indirect costs. In summary, although the market is now dominated by generics, eletriptan 40 mg is among the most clinically and cost-effective oral triptans available for the management of acute migraine. Increased effectiveness/efficacy of eletriptan may necessitate a lesser need for other migraine treatments and/or switching to other triptans.