PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-9 (9)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Limitations of real-world treatment with atorvastatin monotherapy for lowering LDL-C in high-risk cardiovascular patients in the US 
Background
Guidelines endorse statin therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, if needed, after lifestyle changes. Atorvastatin is a common statin with greater LDL-C lowering efficacy than most other statins; its availability in generic form will likely increase its use. This study assessed attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in high-risk CVD patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy.
Methods
Analyses of two retrospective US cohorts of patients who received a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (index date defined as first prescription date) in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record (EMR) (N=10,693) and Humana Medicare (N=16,798) databases. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, with ≥1 LDL-C measurement between 3 months and 1 year postindex date, and continuously enrolled for 1 year prior to and following the index date.
Results
Of the eligible patients, 21.8%, 29.6%, 29.9%, and 18.7% (GE Centricity EMR) and 25.4%, 32.9%, 27.8%, and 14.0% (Humana Medicare) received 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) follow-up LDL-C levels were 2.1±0.8 mmol/L (83±30 mg/dL) and 2.3±0.8 mmol/L (88±31 mg/dL) for the GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare cohorts, respectively. Regardless of dose, only 28.3%–34.8% of patients had LDL-C levels <1.8 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL), and 72.0%–78.0% achieved LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) in both cohorts. As many as 41% and 13% of patients had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above LDL-C 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), respectively, in both cohorts; these percentages were generally similar across atorvastatin doses.
Conclusion
In this real-world US setting, a large number of high-risk CVD patients did not attain guideline-recommended LDL-C levels with atorvastatin monotherapy. More than 65% of the patients had LDL-C levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL), and of these, 30%–40% had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above this, regardless of dose. This suggests that more effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin uptitration, switching to a higher efficacy statin, and/or combination therapy, may be required to achieve optimal LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.
doi:10.2147/VHRM.S54886
PMCID: PMC4008284  PMID: 24851051
statin therapy; managed-care; lipid-lowering therapy
2.  Persistence with weekly and monthly bisphosphonates among postmenopausal women: analysis of a US pharmacy claims administrative database 
Background
Bisphosphonates are available in daily, weekly, and monthly dosing formulations to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis. Some researchers suggested that adherence to monthly bisphosphonate might be different from that with weekly or daily bisphosphonate because of different dosing regimens. However, the actual persistency rates in regular practice settings are unknown.
Objectives
To compare persistence rates with alendronate 70 mg once weekly (AOW), risedronate 35 mg once weekly (ROW), and ibandronate 150 mg once monthly (IOM) in a US pharmacy claims database.
Methods
In this retrospective cohort study, pharmacy claims data of patients with new bisphosphonate prescriptions were extracted for women aged ≥ 50 years who had an AOW, ROW, or IOM prescription (index prescription) between December 30, 2004 and May 31, 2005 (the index period) and did not have the index Rx during the previous 12 months. Patients’ records were reviewed for at least 5 months from their index date to November 2, 2005 (the follow-up period). Patients were considered persistent if they neither discontinued (failed to refill the index Rx within a 45-day period following the last supply day of the previous dispensing) nor switched (changed to another bisphosphonate) during the follow-up period. Medication-possession ratio was defined as days with index prescription supplies/total days of follow-up.
Results
Among 44,635 patients, 25,207 (56.5%) received prescriptions of AOW, 18,689 (41.9%) ROW, and 739 (1.7%) IOM as the index prescription. In all, 35.1% of AOW patients, 32.5% of ROW patients, and 30.4% of IOM patients (P < 0.0001 AOW vs ROW or IOM) had persisted with their initial therapy, whereas 64.0% of AOW, 66.4% of ROW, and 68.2% of IOM patients discontinued (P < 0.0001) during follow-up. The medication-possession ratio (days with index prescription supplies/total days of follow-up) was significantly higher for AOW (0.55) compared with ROW (0.52) and IOM (0.51, P < 0.05). By Kaplan–Meier analysis, the time for 50% of patients to discontinue therapy was also significantly longer with AOW (109 days) compared with ROW (95 days, P < 0.05) or IOM (58 days, P < 0.05).
Conclusion
In a real-world clinical setting, although persistence with all treatments was suboptimal, patients receiving prescriptions for once-weekly alendronate were more likely to be persistent than those receiving prescriptions for once-weekly risedronate or once-monthly ibandronate.
doi:10.2147/CEOR.S39076
PMCID: PMC3838473  PMID: 24277989
adherence; alendronate; bisphosphonates; ibandronate; osteoporosis; risedronate
3.  Burden of peripheral arterial disease in Europe and the United States: a patient survey 
Background
The aim of the current study was to quantify the burden of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) with respect to health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment, and healthcare resource utilization.
Methods
Data were obtained from the 2010 EU National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS), which included participants from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK (5EU, N = 57,805) as well as the 2010 US NHWS (N = 75,000). The NHWS is an annual, cross-sectional, self-administered Internet survey which employs a stratified random sampling frame to match the age and gender characteristics of the NHWS sample with known population statistics. Participants who self-reported a diagnosis of PAD were compared with participants who did not self-report a diagnosis of PAD on health-related quality of life (mental and physical component summary scores and health utilities from the Short Form-12v2), work productivity and activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), and healthcare resource use in terms of the number of physician visits, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations in the past six months through regression modeling adjusting for demographics and health characteristics.
Results
A total of 743 (1.29%) and 777 (1.04%) participants self-reported a diagnosis of PAD in the 5EU and US, respectively. After adjusting for demographics and health characteristics, patients with PAD reported worse health-related quality of life, as measured by health utilities (5EU: 0.66 vs. 0.70; US: 0.66 vs. 0.72; all p < .05), greater overall work impairment percentage (5EU: 38.27% vs. 27.48%; US: 23.89% vs. 14.26%) and greater healthcare resource use compared to participants without PAD (all p < .05).
Conclusions
These results suggest a significant burden for patients with PAD in both the 5 EU countries and the US with respect to both quality of life and economic outcomes. Improved management of these patients may have profound effects from both patient and societal perspectives.
doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-175
PMCID: PMC3854518  PMID: 24148832
Peripheral arterial disease; Health-related quality of life; Work productivity and activity impairment; Healthcare resource use
4.  Effect of pill burden on dosing preferences, willingness to pay, and likely adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes 
Purpose
To quantify willingness-to-pay (WTP) for reducing pill burden and dosing frequency among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and to examine the effect of dosing frequency and pill burden on likely medication adherence.
Patients and methods
Participants were US adults with T2DM on oral antihyperglycemic therapy. Each patient completed an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) with eight choice questions, each including a pair of hypothetical medication profiles. Each profile was defined by reduction in average glucose (AG), daily dosing, chance of mild-to-moderate stomach problems, frequency of hypoglycemia, weight change, incremental risk of congestive heart failure (CHF), and cost. Patients were asked to rate their likely adherence to the profiles presented in each question. Choice questions were based on a predetermined experimental design. Choice data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. Likely treatment adherence was analyzed using a Heckman two-stage model.
Results
Of the 1,114 patients who completed the survey, 90 had lower dosing burden (<5 pills/day taken once/day or as needed) for all medications, and 1,024 had higher dosing burden (≥5 pills/day or more than once/day). Reduction in AG was valued most highly by patients. Hypoglycemia, chance of mild-to-moderate stomach problems, weight change, incremental risk of CHF, and daily dosing were less valued. Patients with higher current dosing burden had lower WTP for more convenient dosing schedules than patients with lower current dosing burden. Changes in dosing and cost impacted likely adherence. The magnitude of the impact of dosing on likely adherence was higher for patients with lower current dosing burden than for patients with higher current dosing burden.
Conclusion
Patients with T2DM were willing to pay for improvements in efficacy, side effects, and dosing. Patients’ WTP for more convenient dosing depended on current dosing burden, as did the effect of these attributes on likely adherence.
doi:10.2147/PPA.S43465
PMCID: PMC3786815  PMID: 24086104
discrete-choice experiment; conjoint analysis; willingness to pay; adherence; type 2 diabetes mellitus; oral antihyperglycemic therapy
5.  Physician Reasons for Nonpharmacologic Treatment of Hyperglycemia in Older Patients Newly Diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus 
Diabetes Therapy  2012;3(1):5.
Introduction
To identify reasons why primary care physicians (PCPs) do not treat older patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with antihyperglycemic agents following diagnosis.
Methods
US PCPs were surveyed via the internet regarding their reasons for not treating patients aged >65 years diagnosed with T2DM and had not yet initiated antihyperglycemic therapy for ≥6 months after diagnosis. PCPs were requested to provide relevant clinical information for untreated older patients and select applicable reasons for not initiating treatment from a list of 35 possibilities, grouped into five categories.
Results
A total of 508 PCPs completed the online survey and provided complete clinical data for 770 patients. The reasons provided by the first-ranked physician for not initiating antihyperglycemic therapy were related to diet and exercise (57.5%); mild hyperglycemia (23.8%); patient’s concerns (13.4%); concerns about antihyperglycemic agents (3.0%); and comorbidities and polypharmacy (2.3%). The “diet and exercise” category was the most common first-ranked non-treatment reason, regardless of recent hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) stratum. Reasons within the “patient’s concerns,” “concerns related to antihyperglycemic agents,” and “comorbidities and polypharmacy” categories tended to be selected more often as first-ranked reasons by physicians for patients with higher HbA1c values. Of the 158 patients whose physicians planned to initiate antihyperglycemic therapy within the next month, 54.4% already had a most recent HbA1c value above their physician-stated threshold for treatment initiation.
Conclusion
In the PCPs studied, there was a tendency to select appropriate reasons for non-treatment with antihyperglycemic agents given their patients’ glycemic status. However, there was inertia related to the initiation of pharmacological therapy in some older patients with newly diagnosed T2DM. Important factors included physicians’ perceptions of “mild” hyperglycemia and the HbA1c threshold for using antihyperglycemic agents.
doi:10.1007/s13300-012-0005-8
PMCID: PMC3508110  PMID: 22700283
Antihyperglycemic agents; Clinical inertia; Elderly; Non-treatment; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
6.  Reasons given by general practitioners for non-treatment decisions in younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom: a survey study 
Background
Older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are less likely to receive antihyperglycaemic therapy compared to their younger counterparts. The purpose of this study was to assess the reasons of general practitioners (GPs) for not treating younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with antihyperglycaemic agents.
Methods
In a survey conducted between November 2009 and January 2010, 358 GPs from the United Kingdom selected reasons for not initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and untreated with any antihyperglycaemic agent for at least six months following diagnosis. Thirty-six potential reasons were classified into four major categories: Mild hyperglycaemia, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents, Comorbidities and polypharmacy, and Patient-related reasons. Reasons for non-treatment were compared between younger (n = 1, 023) and older (n = 1, 005) patients.
Results
Non-treatment reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia were selected more often by GPs for both younger (88%) and older (86%) patients than those in other categories. For older patients, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents (46% vs. 38%) and Comorbidities and polypharmacy (33% vs. 19%), both including safety-related issues, were selected significantly (p < 0.001) more often by GPs. No between-group difference was observed for the Patient-related reasons category. The GP-reported HbA1c threshold for initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for younger patients (mean ± standard deviation: 7.3% ± 0.7) compared to older patients (7.5% ± 0.9).
Conclusions
GPs selected reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia for non-treatment of their untreated patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, despite nearly one-third of these patients having their most recent HbA1c value ≥7%. The findings further suggest that safety-related issues may influence the non-treatment of older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
doi:10.1186/1472-6823-11-17
PMCID: PMC3219572  PMID: 22035104
7.  Assessment of severity and frequency of self-reported hypoglycemia on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents: A survey study 
BMC Research Notes  2011;4:251.
Background
Some oral antihyperglycemic agents may increase risk of hypoglycemia and thereby reduce patient quality of life. Our objective was to assess the impact of the severity and frequency of self-reported hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents.
Findings
A follow-up survey was conducted in participants with self-reported type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents from the US National Health and Wellness Survey 2007. Data were collected on the severity and frequency of hypoglycemic episodes in the 6 months prior to the survey, with severity defined as mild (no interruption of activities), moderate (some interruption of activities), severe (needed assistance of others), or very severe (needed medical attention). HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5D Questionnaire (EQ-5D) US weighted summary score (utility) and Worry subscale of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS). Of the participants who completed the survey (N = 1,984), mean age was 58 years, 57% were male, 72% reported an HbA1c <7.0%, and 50% reported treatment with a sulfonylurea-containing regimen. Hypoglycemic episodes were reported by 63% of patients (46% mild, 37% moderate, 13% severe and 4% very severe). For patients reporting hypoglycemia, mean utility score was significantly lower (0.78 versus 0.86, p < 0.0001) and mean HFS score was significantly higher (17.5 versus 6.2, p < 0.0001) compared to patients not reporting hypoglycemia. Differences in mean scores between those with and without hypoglycemia increased with the level of severity (mild, moderate, severe, very severe) for utility (0.03, 0.09, 0.18, 0.23) and HFS (6.1, 13.9, 20.1, 25.6), respectively. After adjusting for age, gender, weight gain, HbA1c, microvascular complications, and selected cardiovascular conditions, the utility decrement was 0.045 (by level of severity: 0.009, 0.055, 0.131, 0.208), and the HFS increase was 9.6 (by severity: 5.3, 12.4, 17.6, 23.2). HRQoL further decreased with greater frequency of hypoglycemic episodes.
Conclusions
Self-reported hypoglycemia is independently associated with lower HRQoL, and the magnitude of this reduction increases with both severity and frequency of episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents.
doi:10.1186/1756-0500-4-251
PMCID: PMC3148563  PMID: 21777428
8.  Multinational Internet-based survey of patient preference for newer oral or injectable Type 2 diabetes medication 
Background:
The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus continues to rise. Although glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor medications are effective, there are differences between these products, including method of administration (injectable versus oral). The objective of this study was to examine patient preferences (and predictors of preferences) for two different medication profiles, one similar to a GLP-1 analog (liraglutide) and another similar to a DPP-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin).
Methods:
Internet survey data were collected in two waves (wave 1, n = 2402; wave 2, n = 1340) using patients from the US and Europe. Patients were presented with two hypothetical medication profiles (“drug A” and “drug B”, resembling sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively) and asked to report their preferences.
Results:
Most patients in wave 1 and wave 2 reported that overall they would prefer a drug with the sitagliptin-like profile (81.9% and 84.4%, respectively) over a drug with the liraglutide-like profile (18.1% and 15.6%, respectively), and >80% of patients reported that they would be able to take a drug with the sitagliptin-like profile as directed by their physician for a longer period. The likelihood of preferring the sitagliptin-like profile significantly increased as age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02) and importance placed on method of administration (OR = 1.32) increased (P < 0.05). Although the sitagliptin-like profile was preferred by the majority of patients in all subgroups, a lower proportion of patients with obesity, with weight gain, with A1C values above target, and who exercised preferred the sitagliptin-like profile compared with those without obesity (77.0% versus 87.9%), without weight gain (77.8% versus 86.7%), with A1C values at or below target (79.0% versus 86.5%), and who did not exercise (81.6% versus 86.4%), respectively (P < 0.05).
Conclusions:
This research suggests that patients (across geographies) prefer an oral medication with a profile resembling sitagliptin to an injectable medication with a profile resembling liraglutide.
doi:10.2147/PPA.S14477
PMCID: PMC3003606  PMID: 21206515
Type 2 diabetes; medication preference; sitagliptin; liraglutide
9.  Rates of asthma attacks in patients with previously inadequately controlled mild asthma treated in clinical practice with combination drug therapy: an exploratory post-hoc analysis 
Background
Differences could exist in the likelihood of asthma attacks in patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), and montelukast (MON) (ICS/LABA/MON) and patients treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and montelukast (MON) (ICS/MON).
Methods
This was a post-hoc analysis of a pretest-posttest retrospective cohort study. Patients with mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, who were taking an ICS either alone or in combination with a LABA, started concomitant MON treatment as part of their routine care. Rates of asthma- and allergic rhinitis-related medical resource use in the 12-months after the initial (index) MON prescription were compared in the ICS/MON and ICS/LABA/MON groups. An asthma attack was defined as an asthma-related hospitalization, ER visit, or use of an oral corticosteroid.
Results
Of the total of 344 patients, 181 (53%) received ICS/MON and 163 (47%) received ICS/LABA/MON in the post-index period for means of 10.5 and 11.4 months, respectively, (P < 0.05). Short-acting beta-agonists were used by 74.6% in the ICS/MON and 71.8% in the ICS/LABA/MON groups (P > 0.05). An asthma attack occurred in 4.4% of the ICS/MON group and 6.8% of the ICS/LABA/MON group (P > 0.05). The adjusted odds of an asthma attack in the post-index period in the ICS/LABA/MON group relative to the ICS/MON group was 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.35–4.44.
Conclusion
In this observational study of combination drug treatment of mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, no difference was observed between LABA/ICS/MON combination therapy and the ICS/MON combination without LABA use, for the rate of asthma attacks over one year.
doi:10.1186/1471-2466-9-10
PMCID: PMC2678072  PMID: 19331689

Results 1-9 (9)