Healthcare resource use and costs of privately insured patients who switch, discontinue, or persist on anti-muscarinic therapy for overactive bladder

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 741-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmina I. Ivanova ◽  
Eleanor Hayes-Larson ◽  
Rachael A. Sorg ◽  
Howard G. Birnbaum ◽  
Todd Berner
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S376 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Zhdanava ◽  
A. Teeple ◽  
D. Pilon ◽  
N. Shak ◽  
T. Fitzgerald ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fraence Hardtstock

Background: In order to evaluate unmet therapeutic need, this study sought to describe treatment patterns, as well as associated healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs incurred by migraine patients in Germany. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a German claims dataset from 2013-2017, including over three million publicly-insured patients. Adult patients were included if they received at least one inpatient and/or two confirmed outpatient claims for headache/migraine from 2013-2016. Using prescription data from 2017, patients were separated into four main cohorts: those receiving prescriptions for (1) acute agents only, (2) prophylactic agents only, (3) both acute and prophylactic agents, and (4) neither acute nor prophylactic agents. Baseline characteristics were observed from 2013-2016; treatment and HCRU/cost outcomes were assessed in 2017. Results: In total, 199,283 patients were included in this analysis (mean age, 49.49 years; 73.04%, female) and 9,005 prophylactic therapy starters were identified. Overall, 43.47% of migraine patients did not receive acute or prophylactic medication in 2017, while 33.81% received only acute treatment, 9.45% received only prophylactic medication and 13.28% received both. Only 28.90% of patients initiating a prophylactic treatment were persistent after two years. HCRU was elevated for all groups, while direct costs ranged from €2,288-7,246 per year, and indirect costs ranged from €868-1,859. Conclusions: Despite high levels of HCRU, few migraine patients were treated with prophylactic agents, and those who did were at an elevated risk of early discontinuation. Ultimately, these findings indicate a resounding need for safe, timely, and efficacious use of prophylaxis among migraine patients.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e049623
Author(s):  
Leona K Shum ◽  
Herbert Chan ◽  
Shannon Erdelyi ◽  
Lulu X Pei ◽  
Jeffrey R Brubacher

IntroductionRoad trauma (RT) is a major public health problem affecting physical and mental health, and may result in prolonged absenteeism from work or study. It is important for healthcare providers to know which RT survivors are at risk of a poor outcome, and policy-makers should know the associated costs. Unfortunately, outcome after RT is poorly understood, especially for RT survivors who are treated and released from an emergency department (ED) without the need for hospital admission. Currently, there is almost no research on risk factors for a poor outcome among RT survivors. This study will use current Canadian data to address these knowledge gaps.Methods and analysisWe will follow an inception cohort of 1500 RT survivors (16 years and older) who visited a participating ED within 24 hours of the accident. Baseline interviews determine pre-existing health and functional status, and other potential risk factors for a poor outcome. Follow-up interviews at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months (key stages of recovery) use standardised health-related quality of life tools to determine physical and mental health outcome, functional recovery, and healthcare resource use and lost productivity costs.Ethics and disseminationThe Road Trauma Outcome Study is approved by our institutional Research Ethics Board. This study aims to provide healthcare providers with knowledge on how quickly RT survivors recover from their injuries and who may be more likely to have a poor outcome. We anticipate that this information will be used to improve management of all road users following RT. Healthcare resource use and lost productivity costs will be collected to provide a better cost estimate of the effects of RT. This information can be used by policy-makers to make informed decisions on RT prevention programmes.


2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A466
Author(s):  
F Lopes ◽  
MJ Passos ◽  
A Raimundo ◽  
PA Laires

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document