Search

Asthma causes various clinical symptoms, including unpredictable severe exacerbations, and even though most patients can achieve a reasonable disease control due to adequate treatment, some patients do not. This study seeks to describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and treatment of asthma and severe asthma patients in Germany.A retrospective claims data analysis has been conducted on adult asthma patients and a subset of patients with severe asthma, identified during July 2017 - June 2018. A proxy was used to identify severe asthma patients based on therapy options recommended within the German treatment guideline for treating these patients. These include (i) biologics, (ii) medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in conjunction with LABA/montelukast and antibiotics/oral corticosteroids (OCS), and (iii) long-term OCS therapy. HCRU and treatment of patients were observed during a 1-year follow-up period (July 2018 - June 2019).The study included 388 932 adult asthma patients (prevalence: 7.90%), with 2.51%-12.88% affected by severe asthma (depending on the definition). 22.60% of all asthma patients experienced hospitalizations (severe asthma: 36.11%). Furthermore, 13.59% received OCS (severe asthma: 39.91%), but only 0.18% (severe asthma: 1.25%) received biologics. Only 23.95% (severe asthma: 41.17%) visited a pulmonologist.A considerable proportion of severe asthma patients receive long-term OCS therapy. However, less than 50% have seen a pulmonologist who would typically seek a change in treatment to avoid the long-term consequences of OCS. To optimize the treatment of severe asthma in Germany, better referral of these patients to specialists is needed and considering potential treatment alternatives.

Fraence Hardtstock,1 Julia Krieger,1 Thomas Wilke,1 Marco Lukas,2 Bernhard Ultsch,2 Robert Welte,2 Renate Quinzler,3 Ulf Maywald,4 Hartmut Timmermann5 1IPAM e.V, Wismar, Germany; 2GlaxoSmithKline GmbH & Co. KG, München, Germany; 3AOK Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Germany; 4AOK PLUS, Dresden, Germany; 5Schwerpunktpraxis Colonnaden, Hamburg, GermanyCorrespondence: Fraence Hardtstock, Email Fraence.hardtstock@ipam-wismar.deBackground: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in Germany. While many patients achieve asthma control under standard therapies, some patients still experience exacerbations and persistent airway obstructions. Thus, further pharmacological treatment is needed, and biologics could fill this gap, as they have shown clinical benefit in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, this real-world study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs before and after biologic therapy initiation.Methods: A retrospective claims data analysis has been conducted on adult asthma patients who initiated a long-term biologic therapy between January 2015 and June 2018. Patients were therapy-naïve to biologics for at least 12 months. HCRU and cost incurred by patients during 12 months before and after therapy initiation were compared.Results: Overall, 571 asthma patients initiated a biologic therapy during the observational period (316 omalizumab, 232 mepolizumab, 16 benralizumab, and 7 reslizumab). Patients had a mean age of 54.86 (62.70% female), and the majority (93.70%) received at least one follow-up prescription of their index-biologic agent within one year. During baseline, patients received on average 2.75 OCS prescriptions compared to 2.17 during follow-up. Most patients received less or the same amount of OCS after therapy initiation. Moreover, hospitalizations and asthma-related sick leave days decreased significantly. The average total costs per patient were € 6618.90 during baseline and € 22,832.33 during follow-up. Biologics mainly drove the increase; however, hospitalization costs were reduced significantly (€ 2443.37 vs € 1941.93; p< 0.001).Conclusion: Our study demonstrates an improved asthma control due to the initiation of a biologic therapy in terms of decreased hospitalization frequency, OCS consumption, and sick leave days. However, biologics are associated with high costs for healthcare providers during the first year after initiation. Therefore, short- and long-term clinical benefits and financial burden must be considered in the overall context of healthcare.Keywords: biologics, treatment pattern, claims data, real-world evidence, Germany

Background: Guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend supplementing pharmacotherapy with non-pharmacological interventions. Little is known about the use of such interventions by patients. We analyzed the utilization of a number of non-pharmacological interventions and identified potential determinants of use.Methods: Based on self-reports, use of interventions (smoking cessation, influenza vaccination, physiotherapy, sports program, patient education, pulmonary rehabilitation) and recommendation to use were assessed in 1410 patients with COPD. The utilization was analyzed according to sex and severity of disease. Potential determinants of utilization included demographic variables and disease characteristics and were analyzed using logistic regression models.Results: Influenza vaccination in the previous autumn/winter was reported by 73% of patients. About 19% were currently participating in a reimbursed sports program, 10% received physiotherapy, 38% were ever enrolled in an educational program, and 34% had ever participated in an outpatient or inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program. Out of 553 current or former smokers, 24% had participated in a smoking cessation program. While reports of having received a recommendation to use mainly did not differ according to sex, women showed significantly (p < 0.05) higher utilization rates than men for all interventions except influenza vaccination. Smoking was a predictor for not having received a recommendation for utilization and also significantly associated with a reduced odds of utilization. We found a correlation between recommendation to use and utilization.Conclusions: Utilization of non-pharmacological interventions was lower in men and smokers. A recommendation or offer to use by the physician could help to increase uptake.

Arbeit an der Bibliothek noch nicht eingelangt - Daten nicht geprüft Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung des Verfassers/der Verfasserin Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Diplomarbeit, 2019