scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of patients newly diagnosed with MS received a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately two-thirds of patients newly diagnosed with MS did not receive a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Metabolic Conditions

Abstract Background: The treatment landscape for multiple sclerosis (MS) is quickly evolving. Understanding real-world treatment patterns of patients is necessary to identifying potential gaps in care.Methods: Patients with incident MS were identified from a large national claims database during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for MS or an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of MS. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and ≥1 year following their first MS diagnosis. Treatment sequences were captured for all available disease modifying therapies (DMTs) during all available follow-up. Presence of comorbid conditions were captured during the one year prior to and following (and including) the index date; absolute change in prevalence from the pre- to post-index periods was calculated. Results: We identified 5,691 patients with incident MS. Common comorbidities included physical symptoms (e.g., pain, weakness, fatigue), mental health conditions (anxiety, depression), and cardiovascular/metabolic conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity). Just 1,994 (35.0%) of patients received a DMT at any time during follow-up. Of those receiving a DMT, 28.2% went on to receive a second line of therapy, 5.8% received a third, and just 0.9% went on to a fourth line. Use of more than one DMT concomitantly occurred in just 1.8% of all treated patients. Glatiramer and dimethyl fumarate were by far the most common first-line treatments received accounting for nearly 62% of patients receiving a DMT. Conclusion: Approximately two-thirds of patients newly diagnosed with MS did not receive a DMT and the disease is accompanied by a significant comorbid burden.

scholarly journals Treatment patterns and sequences of pharmacotherapy for patients diagnosed with depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014–1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and 3 years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics. Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression. The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 29 to 52%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and more than 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes ranged from approximately 20% of first-line therapies to 40% of fourth-line. Conclusions Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns, Adverse Events, and Economic Burden in a Privately Insured Population of Newly Diagnosed Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the United States

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3557-3557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaum Kabadi ◽  
Ravi K Goyal ◽  
Saurabh P Nagar ◽  
James A Kaye ◽  
Keith L Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
The Us ◽  
Privately Insured

Abstract Introduction: Contemporary data describing treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs) and outcomes in CLL patients in clinical practice is lacking. We conducted a retrospective cohort study and assessed treatment patterns, AEs, health care resource use (HCRU), and costs in patients with newly diagnosed CLL. Methods: Using a nationally representative population of privately insured patients in the US, adult patients with CLL were selected if they had continuous health plan enrollment for ≥12 months before the first CLL diagnosis without any evidence of any CLL-directed treatment. Treatment patterns up to 4 lines of therapy (LOT) and occurrence of AEs during CLL therapies were assessed. Mean per-patient monthly HCRU and costs were assessed overall and by number of unique AEs. Results: Of all patients meeting the selection criteria (n=7,639; median age, 66 years), 18% (n=1,379) received a systemic therapy during study follow-up. The most common systemic therapy regimens, regardless of therapy line, were bendamustine/rituximab (BR) (32%), rituximab monotherapy (24% [including maintenance]), ibrutinib monotherapy (15%), and fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/ rituximab (FCR) (14%). Of these, BR was the most common LOT-1 regimen (28.1%), while ibrutinib was the most common regimen in LOT-2 (20.8%) and in LOT-3 (25.5%). Use of idelalisib was limited to 1.6% of all patients receiving systemic therapy; however, an increasing trend was observed as patients moved from first to fourth LOT (<1% in LOT-1, 3.1% in LOT-2, 4.7% in LOT-3, and 8.6% in LOT-4). AEs identified during the most common treatments for CLL are presented by treatment regimen in Table 1. The mean monthly all-cause and CLL-related costs, among patients treated with a systemic therapy, were $7,943 (SD=$15,757) and $5,185 (SD=$9,935), respectively. Figure 1 depicts mean monthly costs by care setting and number of AEs, among all patients. Mean (SD) monthly all-cause costs during the post-index date follow-up were $905 ($1,865) among those with no AEs, $1,655 ($5,364) among those with 1-2 AEs, $2,883 ($8,483) among those with 3-5 AEs, and $6,032 ($13,290) among those with ≥6 AEs. Conclusions: This population-based study yielded recent real-world evidence on treatment patterns, AEs, HCRU, and costs in patients enrolled in health plans in the US. Immunochemotherapy, particularly BR, remained the preferred frontline therapy for CLL, whereas ibrutinib was the preferred therapy in LOT-2 and LOT-3, during the study period. This study demonstrates that the AE burden associated with current treatment alternatives for CLL is substantial, and the management of AEs occurring during treatments may have a significant impact on the overall health care costs. Disclosures Kabadi: AstraZeneca: Employment. Goyal:RTI Health Solutions: Employment, Research Funding. Nagar:RTI Health Solutions: Employment, Research Funding. Kaye:RTI Health Solutions: Employment, Research Funding. Davis:RTI Health Solutions: Employment, Research Funding. Mato:Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Sequences of Pharmacotherapy for Patients Diagnosed with Depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Tricyclic Antidepressants ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background : Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods : Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014-1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and three years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics . Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results : We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression . The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 31% to 54%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes was relatively uncommon across all treatment lines. Conclusions : Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP) in the United States: An Electronic Medical Record (EMR)-Based Analysis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 43-43
Author(s):  
Amanda Wilson ◽  
Ahmed Daak ◽  
Jun Su
Keyword(s):  
Index Date ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Chronic Itp ◽  
Pain Medications

Introduction ITP is an autoimmune disorder characterized by platelet destruction and impaired production. Some patients with ITP are refractory or unresponsive to existing therapies, indicating significant unmet medical needs. An assessment of current real-world treatment patterns among patients with ITP should enhance understanding of the ITP disease population and current unmet need. Here we present real-world data describing the ITP population in the United States in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics and use of available ITP therapies. Methods This was a longitudinal, retrospective, observational cohort study utilizing data from the Optum® Clinformatics® claims database. Patients with newly diagnosed ITP were included; defined as patients with ≥1 inpatient claim or ≥2 outpatient claims within 90 days of ITP-related diagnosis codes (International Classification of Diseases [ICD], Ninth and Tenth Revision; ICD-9: 287.3x; ICD-10: D69.3x or D69.4x) between October 1, 2015 and March 31, 2020. The index date was the date these criteria were met. Patients were excluded if they had &lt;12 months continuous coverage or any record of thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPO-RA) use before the index date. All patients were required to have ≥1 prescription during follow-up. Primary ITP was defined as patients who met the inclusion criteria and also had no ICD codes for secondary ITP, and no causes of secondary ITP in an identified time period prior to the index date. Here we describe clinical characteristics and medication use among newly diagnosed patients with primary ITP and the proportion of patients who went on to develop persistent (90 days to &lt;12 months) or chronic (≥12 months) ITP. Results There were 19,376 newly diagnosed patients who met inclusion criteria; 15,798 (82%) had primary ITP and 3,578 (18%) had secondary ITP. Among patients with primary ITP, median (min-max) duration of follow-up was 16 (0-55) months and 61% had ≥12 months of follow-up (median duration: 26 months). At baseline, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 67 (16) years and 53% of patients were male. Mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 0.94 (1.41) and 11% of patients fell into a CCI category ≥3. The most common comorbid conditions were hypertension (60%), cardiovascular disease (37%), diabetes (29%), and anemia (27%). The most commonly used concomitant medications were lipid-lowering medications (44%), pain medications (24%), corticosteroids (23%), and anticoagulants (11%). During follow-up, use of these medications increased (lipid-lowering medications [46%], pain medications [38%], corticosteroids [39%], and anticoagulants [15%]). The most commonly used ITP medications during follow-up were corticosteroids (33%), rituximab (3.3%), TPO-RA (2.8%), immunosuppressants (2.6%), intravenous immunoglobulin (2.5%), and immunomodulators (2.4%). There were 1935 (12%) deaths during follow-up, and 87 (0.6%) patients underwent a splenectomy. Of the patients with ≥12 months of follow-up (n=9610), 16% and 32% developed persistent ITP and chronic ITP, respectively. Among the patients with persistent/chronic ITP and ≥12 months of follow-up, 242 (5.3%) received TPO-RA during follow-up. Of these, 93% concomitantly received ≥1 additional ITP treatment-related medication (TRM), 73% of the patients who received TPO-RA and ≥1 other TRM received ≥2 additional ITP TRMs, and 68% of patients who received TPO-RA and ≥2 other TRMs received ≥3 additional ITP TRMs. Of the 242 patients with ≥12 months of follow-up and persistent/chronic ITP who received TPO-RA, 55 (23%) either received an additional TPO-RA therapy or received another newly initiated ITP-related medication ≥30 days after starting TPO-RA. Almost half of the patients with primary ITP developed persistent/chronic disease. However, only a small percentage of these patients in the Optum® Clinformatics® claims database with no history of TPO-RA use received TPO-RA during follow-up. The majority of patients treated with TPO-RA received ≥1 other ITP TRM during follow-up and nearly 1 in 4 persistent/chronic patients receiving TPO-RA required ≥1 additional TPO-RA or switched to another ITP medication. Conclusion Even with the availability of many ITP drug therapies, there is still a considerable current unmet need for effective treatments among patients with primary ITP. The authors acknowledge Rajeshwari Punekar for contributions to study design. Disclosures Wilson: Sanofi: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Daak:Sanofi: Current Employment. Su:Sanofi: Current Employment.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns and Sequences of Pharmacotherapy for Patients Diagnosed with Depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kern ◽  
M. Soledad Cepeda ◽  
Frank Defalco ◽  
Mila Etropolski
Keyword(s):  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
First Line ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Class Level ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Antidepressive Treatment

Abstract Background: Understanding how patients are treated in the real-world is vital to identifying potential gaps in care. We describe the current pharmacologic treatment patterns for the treatment of depression. Methods: Patients with depression were identified from four large national claims databases during 1/1/2014-1/31/2019. Patients had ≥2 diagnoses for depression or an inpatient hospitalization with a diagnosis of depression. Patients were required to have enrollment in the database ≥1 year prior to and three years following their first depression diagnosis. Treatment patterns were captured at the class level and included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, other antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, and antipsychotics. Treatment patterns were captured during all available follow-up. Results: We identified 269,668 patients diagnosed with depression. The proportion not receiving any pharmacological treatment during follow-up ranged from 29% to 52%. Of the treated, approximately half received ≥2 different classes of therapy, a quarter received ≥3 classes and more than 10% received 4 or more. SSRIs were the most common first-line treatment; however, many patients received an anxiolytic, hypnotic/sedative, or antipsychotic prior to any antidepressive treatment. Treatment with a combination of classes ranged from approximately 20% of first-line therapies to 40% of fourth-line. Conclusions: Many patients diagnosed with depression go untreated and many others receive a non-antidepressant medication class as their first treatment. More than half of patients received more than one type of treatment class during the study follow up, suggesting that the first treatment received may not be optimal for most patients.

scholarly journals Utilization and Treatment Patterns of Disease-Modifying Therapy Among Pediatric Patients With Multiple Sclerosis in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greenberg Benjamin ◽  
Scott Kolodny ◽  
Mengru Wang ◽  
Chinmay Deshpande
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Considerable Proportion ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Disease Modifying Therapy ◽  
Disease Modifying

Abstract Background: The current landscape and treatment patterns of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) use among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is not yet well understood. This study examined DMT utilization and treatment patterns among pediatric patients newly diagnosed with MS. Methods: Pediatric patients (&lt;18 years) with 2 MS diagnosis claims from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016, were identified from the MarketScan Commercial Database. Index date was defined as the date of first MS diagnosis and patients were followed up for 1-year post-index date. Outcomes evaluated included percentage of patients who initiated treatment after MS diagnosis, different DMTs initiated, treatment discontinuation, and switching treatment over the follow-up period. Results: Of the 182,057 newly diagnosed MS patients, 288 pediatric patients (mean age: 14 years; females: 61%) were identified. Within the first year of diagnosis, 188 patients (65.3%) did not receive any DMT. The most commonly first initiated treatments were interferons and glatiramer acetate (83%), but 28% of patients switched or discontinued from first initiated treatment within 6 months of treatment initiation. Conclusions: This study suggests that a considerable proportion of pediatric MS patients remain untreated within one year. Patients most commonly initiated injectables as their first DMT. Overall approximately 1 in 3 patients failed on therapy early. Thus, the study warrants urgency in treating these patients with currently approved treatment options.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document