Prevalence of Vitiligo among Children and Adolescents in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Vitiligo is an autoimmune disorder that causes patchy loss of skin pigmentation. Up to 2.16% of pediatric patients may have vitiligo. This study estimated vitiligo point prevalence in children and adolescents (ages: 4-11 and 12-17 years) in the United States (US). METHODS: An online, population-based survey of a nationally representative sample of individuals based on 2017 US Census Bureau estimates for age, race, Hispanic origin, income, and geographic region was conducted from December 2019 to March 2020. Parent/legal guardian proxies responded on behalf of their children or adolescents to vitiligo screening questions. Proxy-reported vitiligo status was adjudicated by expert dermatologists who reviewed photographs of vitiligo lesions uploaded by proxies using a teledermatology application. Estimated point prevalence (including diagnosed and undiagnosed vitiligo and its subtypes) was calculated for proxy-reported and clinician-adjudicated vitiligo. RESULTS: There were 9,118 eligible proxy responses (5,209 children, mean age 7.7 years; 3,909 adolescents, mean age 14.4 years). The proxy-reported vitiligo prevalence (95% confidence interval) for children and adolescents was 1.52% (1.11-1.93) and 2.16% (1.66-2.65), respectively. The clinician-adjudicated prevalence (sensitivity analysis bounds) was 0.84% (0.83-1.23) and 1.19% (1.18-1.74), respectively. Approximately 69% of children and 65% of adolescents had nonsegmental vitiligo (clinician adjudicated) and up to 50% may be undiagnosed. CONCLUSION: Based on the clinician-adjudicated prevalence estimates, there were more than 591,000 cases of vitiligo in children and adolescents in the US in 2020. More than two-thirds had nonsegmental vitiligo and nearly half may be undiagnosed. Future studies should confirm these findings.

Associations between seizure severity change and patient characteristics, changes in seizure frequency, and health-related quality of life in patients with focal seizures treated with adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate: Post hoc analyses of clinical trial results.

The relationships between seizure severity change and patient characteristics, changes in seizure frequency, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) may be important for determining the overall impact of medication therapy on patients with epilepsy. The objectives of these post hoc analyses of the global Phase III 093-0304 trial (NCT00988429, Study 304) of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients with refractory focal (partial-onset) seizures (FS) were to evaluate associations between seizure severity change, measured by the Seizure Severity Questionnaire (SSQ), and 1) patient characteristics, 2) seizure frequency change, standardized as the seizure frequency (SSF) per 28-day period, and 3) change in HRQoL, evaluated by the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31 (QOLIE-31) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The analyses were conducted on the per-protocol population (PPP) of patients who were randomized to a placebo arm (n = 188) or an ESL-active group that included treatment with adjunctive ESL 800 mg once daily (QD; n = 184) or adjunctive ESL 1200 mg QD (n = 175). General linear models (GLM) were used to measure the association between SSQ change and patient baseline characteristics or percentage change in the SSF from baseline. Associations between changes in the SSQ and changes in the QOLIE-31 and MADRS were examined using GLM with patient baseline characteristics as covariates. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients in the ESL-active group and those treated with ESL 800 mg or ESL 1200 mg. Minimal clinically important difference (MCIDs) thresholds were used to assess improvements in SSQ scores. The analyses included 547 per-protocol patients. Patients using 1 antiepileptic drug (AED) at baseline had greater improvements in the SSQ compared with those receiving 2 AEDs (P = 0.0606). Treatment with ESL 1200 mg was significantly associated with clinically meaningful improvements in the SSQ (P = 0.0005). The SSQ improvements were significantly associated with an SSF reduction of ≥75%, compared with no reduction (P < 0.0001). In the PPP and the ESL-active group, SSQ improvements were significantly associated with improvements in QOLIE-31 Total Score (TS; P < 0.0001) and the Seizure Worry (SW; P < 0.0001) and Social Functioning (SF; P = 0.0030) subscales. In the ESL 1200 mg subgroup, SSQ improvements were significantly associated with improvements in QOLIE-31 TS (P < 0.0001) and the SW (P < 0.0001) and Energy/Fatigue (EF; P = 0.0007) subscales. In the ESL 800 mg subgroup, improvements in the SSQ were significantly associated with improvements in QOLIE-31 TS (P = 0.0362) and the SW (P = 0.0241) subscale. There was no significant association between changes in the SSQ and changes in the MADRS in patients treated with ESL. These findings demonstrated that in this clinical trial population, adding ESL to baseline AED therapy had utility for decreasing seizure severity and improving HRQoL. There were no significant associations between changes in seizure severity and changes in depressive symptoms in patients with FS.

Health-related quality of life in patients treated with eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy: Pooled analysis from two registered clinical trials.

PURPOSE: While antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment effectiveness is traditionally assessed based on seizure frequency reduction (SFR), the overall value of AEDs in managing epilepsy and associated sequelae may be best assessed by how patients feel and function in terms of overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We conducted a pooled analysis of the Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31 (QOLIE-31) questionnaire from two phase 3 trials to explore the effect of response to conversion to eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy on HRQoL. METHODS: Data were pooled from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, historical control phase 3 trials examining conversion to ESL monotherapy in adults with inadequately controlled partial-onset seizures (POS). The relationship between HRQoL and ESL treatment response was examined through the analysis of week 18 QOLIE-31 scores between patients who met the SFR ≥50% threshold (responders) and patients with SFR <50% (nonresponders). The analysis was conducted in the efficacy population (intent-to-treat (ITT) patients who entered the AED taper/conversion period) and completer population (efficacy patients who completed the ESL monotherapy period) and was repeated using an SFR ≥75% threshold. RESULTS: In the efficacy population, week 18 QOLIE-31 total score least squares mean (LSM) was significantly higher for responders with ≥50% SFR (LSM difference: 3.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2-5.8; p = 0.037) and with ≥75% SFR (LSM difference: 7.0; 95% CI: 3.6-10.3; p < 0.001) than nonresponders. In the completer population, overall quality of life (QoL) (LSM difference: 5.1; 95% CI: 1.5-8.6; p = 0.006) and social functioning (LSM difference: 5.4; 95% CI: 0.1-10.7; p = 0.046) were significantly higher for responders with ≥50% SFR than nonresponders, and all domain LSMs were higher for responders with ≥75% SFR (all p < 0.05) than nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of data from the phase 3 trials demonstrated significantly higher HRQoL among ESL responders with SFR of ≥75% and also at the lower SFR threshold of ≥50% compared with nonresponders.

Impact of seizure frequency reduction on health-related quality of life among clinical trial subjects with refractory partial-onset seizures: A pooled analysis of phase III clinical trials of eslicarbazepine acetate.

BACKGROUND: Subjects who received eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy experienced significantly greater seizure frequency reduction (SFR) than placebo in three phase III, randomized, double-blind trials. This analysis compared changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between treatment responders and non-responders across the pooled, per-protocol population (N=842) using the validated Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31 (QOLIE-31). METHODS: QOLIE-31 scores were calculated for Total Score (TS) and seven subscales; higher scores indicate better HRQOL. Mean changes from baseline were calculated. Analysis of covariance examined least square mean (LSM) differences in final scores between responders (≥50% and ≥75% SFR) and non-responders. Clinical significance was based on established minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). RESULTS: Mean changes were greater among responders for TS (5.2 versus 1.4 for ≥50% SFR; 7.5 versus 1.9 for ≥75% SFR) and all subscales. Additionally, the percentage of subjects with changes meeting or exceeding MCIDs was higher among responders for TS (48.4% versus 33.9% for ≥50% SFR; 56.9% versus 35.8% for ≥75% SFR) and all subscales. Responders had significantly higher final scores for TS (LSM difference=4.0 for ≥50% SFR; LSM difference=5.7 for ≥75% SFR) and all subscales except emotional well-being at ≥50% SFR. LSM differences exceeded MCIDs at ≥75% SFR for TS and five of seven subscales, and two subscales at ≥50% SFR. In a subgroup analysis with placebo removed, LSM differences were larger overall. SIGNIFICANCE: In clinical trials of adjunctive ESL, higher levels of SFR were associated with greater improvements in HRQOL.

A Comparative Study of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events Following Use of Common Bowel Preparations Among a Colonoscopy Screening Population: Results from a Post-Marketing Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy may be one of the most frequent elective procedures in older adults and is associated with a low occurrence of complications. However, reduction of risks attributable to the bowel preparation may be achieved with the use of effective and safer products. AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with SUPREP(®) [oral sulfate solution (OSS)] and other common prescription bowel preparations (non-OSS). METHODS: This real-world, observational study used de-identified health insurance claims and laboratory results to identify TEAEs in the 3 months following screening colonoscopy in adults with a prescription for a bowel preparation in the prior 60 days. The unadjusted and adjusted (controlling for patient risk factors) cumulative incidences of TEAEs were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Poisson regression, respectively. RESULTS: Among patients ≥45 years, the overall cumulative incidence was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the OSS cohort than in the non-OSS cohort (unadjusted: 2.31 vs. 2.89 %; adjusted: 1.61 vs. 1.95 %), with significantly lower acute cardiac conditions (1.56 vs. 1.90 %; p < 0.001), renal failure/other serious renal diseases (OSS: 0.21 %, non-OSS: 0.32 %; p < 0.001), and serum electrolyte abnormalities (OSS: 0.39 %, non-OSS: 0.49 %; p = 0.017). There were no significant differences between cohorts in death, seizure disorders, aggravation of gout, and ischemic colitis. Results were similar in the adjusted cumulative incidences. CONCLUSIONS: In actual use, the overall cumulative incidence of TEAEs was significantly lower in the OSS cohort, demonstrating that OSS is as safe as, or possibly safer than, non-OSS prescription bowel preparations.

Severity and burden of partial-onset seizures in a phase III trial of eslicarbazepine acetate.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare posttreatment seizure severity in a phase III clinical trial of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive treatment of refractory partial-onset seizures. METHODS: The Seizure Severity Questionnaire (SSQ) was administered at baseline and posttreatment. The SSQ total score (TS) and component scores (frequency and helpfulness of warning signs before seizures [BS]; severity and bothersomeness of ictal movement and altered consciousness during seizures [DS]; cognitive, emotional, and physical aspects of postictal recovery after seizures [AS]; and overall severity and bothersomeness [SB]) were calculated for the per-protocol population. Analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline scores, estimated differences in posttreatment least square means between treatment arms. RESULTS: Out of 547 per-protocol patients, 441 had valid SSQ TS both at baseline and posttreatment. Mean posttreatment TS for ESL 1200 mg/day was significantly lower than that for placebo (2.68 vs 3.20, p<0.001), exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID: 0.48). Mean DS, AS, and SB were also significantly lower with ESL 1200 mg/day; differences in AS and SB exceeded the MCIDs. The TS, DS, AS, and SB were lower for ESL 800 mg/day than for placebo; only SB was significant (p=0.013). For both ESL arms combined versus placebo, mean scores differed significantly for TS (p=0.006), DS (p=0.031), and SB (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic ESL doses led to clinically meaningful, dose-dependent reductions in seizure severity, as measured by SSQ scores. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study presents Class I evidence that adjunctive ESL (800 and 1200 mg/day) led to clinically meaningful, dose-dependent seizure severity reductions, measured by the SSQ.

Clinical and Healthcare Resource Use Outcomes between Dual-plane and Prepectoral Techniques in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

This multicenter, retrospective study compared clinical outcomes and healthcare resource use in patients who underwent dual-plane (DP) or prepectoral (PP) implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in the United States. Methods: Medical records were selected for patients at five sites undergoing immediate one-stage direct-to-implant (first hospitalization) or two-stage IBR (first and second hospitalization) using either DP or PP. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for potential confounders. Complications and healthcare resource use were assessed with logistic regression; pain severity was assessed with ordinary least-squares regression. Results: After inverse probability of treatment weighting, data from 255 patients (DP = 130, PP = 125) and 441 breasts (DP = 226, PP = 215) were analyzed. Mean pain severity scores were lower with PP versus DP immediately after IBR for first (P = 0.0002) and second hospitalizations (P = 0.0145), and before discharge for first (P < 0.0001) and second hospitalizations (P = 0.0002). A greater proportion of PP versus DP patients had a shorter hospital length of stay (≤ 23 hours) for first hospitalization (P = 0.0052); proportions were similar for second hospitalization (P = 0.5499). Intravenous narcotics were prescribed less frequently to PP versus DP patients during first (61.1% versus 69.8%, respectively; P = 0.1486) and second (37.5% versus 55.3%, respectively; P = 0.0172) hospitalizations. Complication rates were low in both groups after first hospitalization discharge (DP: 13.6%, PP: 12.5%, P = 0.7225). Conclusion: This retrospective study suggests that the PP technique in IBR may offer benefits related to clinical outcomes and health resource utilization; however, larger studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm.

Real-World Reductions in Healthcare Resource Utilization over 6 Months in Patients with Substance Use Disorders Treated with a Prescription Digital Therapeutic.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Substance use disorders (SUDs) affect approximately 40.3 million people in the USA, yet only approximately 19% receive evidence-based treatment each year. reSET® is a prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) and the only FDA-authorized treatment for patients with cocaine, cannabis, and stimulant use disorders. This study evaluated real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs 6 months after initiation of reSET in patients with SUD. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of HealthVerity PrivateSource20 data compared the 6-month incidence of all-cause hospital facility encounters and clinician services in patients treated with reSET (re-SET cohort) before (pre-index period) and after (post-index period) reSET initiation (index). Incidence was compared using incidence rate ratios (IRR). HCRU-related costs were also assessed. RESULTS: The sample included 101 patients (median age 37 years, 50.5% female, 54.5% Medicaid-insured). A statistically significant decrease of 50% was observed in overall hospital encounters from pre-index to post-index (IRR 0.50; 95% CI 0.37-0.67; P < 0.001), which included inpatient stays (56% decrease; IRR 0.44; 95% CI 0.26-0.76; P = 0.003), partial hospitalizations (57% decrease; IRR 0.43; 95% CI 0.21-0.88; P = 0.021), and emergency department visits (45% decrease; IRR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.80; P < 0.004). Additionally, some clinician services declined significantly including pathology and laboratory services: other (54% decrease; IRR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28-0.76; P = 0.003); pathology and laboratory services: drug assays prior to opioid medication prescription (37% decrease; IRR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-0.96; P = 0.031); and alcohol and drug abuse: medication services (46% decrease; IRR 0.54; 95% CI 0.41-0.70; P < 0.001). Reductions in facility-encounters drove 6-month reSET per-patient cost reductions of $3591 post-index compared to pre-index. CONCLUSIONS: Use of reSET by patients with SUD is associated with durable reductions in HCRU and lower healthcare costs over 6 months compared to the 6 months before PDT treatment, after adjusting for covariates, providing an economic benefit to the healthcare system.

Prevalence of Vitiligo Among Adults in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Vitiligo can have profound effects on patients and is often associated with other autoimmune comorbid conditions. It is important to understand the current prevalence of vitiligo, including diagnosed, undiagnosed, and subtypes (nonsegmental and segmental). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the point prevalence of vitiligo in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For this population-based study of adults in the US, a cross-sectional online survey was administered between December 2019 and March 2020 to obtain participant self-reported vitiligo status. A representative sample of the US adult general population, aged 18 to 85 years, was recruited using a stratified proportional, sampling design from general population research panels. Additionally, 3 expert dermatologists adjudicated participants' self-reported vitiligo diagnosis by reviewing photographs uploaded by the participants using a teledermatology app designed and tested specifically for this study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcomes were the point prevalence estimates of overall vitiligo, as well as diagnosed, undiagnosed, nonsegmental, and segmental vitiligo. RESULTS: Among the 40 888 eligible adult participants, the mean (SD) age was 44.9 (17.4) years, 23 170 (56.7%) were female, 30 428 (74.4%) were White, and 4225 (10.3%) were of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin. Self-reported vitiligo prevalence was 1.38% (95% CI, 1.26%-1.49%), with 0.77% (95% CI, 0.68%-0.85%) for diagnosed and 0.61% (95% CI, 0.54%-0.69%) for undiagnosed. Based on expert dermatologist review of 113 photographs of participants with self-reported vitiligo, clinician-adjudicated vitiligo prevalence (sensitivity bounds) was 0.76% (0.76%-1.11%), with 0.46% (0.46%-0.61%) for diagnosed and 0.29% (0.29%-0.50%) for undiagnosed. Self-reported nonsegmental vitiligo prevalence was 0.77% (95% CI, 0.68%-0.85%), with 0.48% (95% CI, 0.41%-0.55%) for diagnosed and 0.29% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.34%) for undiagnosed. Clinician-adjudicated nonsegmental vitiligo prevalence (sensitivity bounds) was 0.58% (0.57%-0.84%), with 0.37% (0.37%-0.49%) for diagnosed and 0.21% (0.20%-0.36%) for undiagnosed. Self-reported segmental vitiligo prevalence was 0.61% (95% CI, 0.53%-0.69%), with 0.28% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.33%) for diagnosed and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.27%-0.38%) for undiagnosed. Clinician-adjudicated segmental vitiligo prevalence (sensitivity bounds) was 0.18% (0.18%-0.27%), with 0.09% (0.09%-0.12%) for diagnosed and 0.08% (0.08%-0.15%) for undiagnosed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this survey study demonstrated that the current US population-based prevalence estimate of overall (diagnosed and undiagnosed combined) vitiligo in adults is between 0.76% (1.9 million cases in 2020) and 1.11% (2.8 million cases in 2020). Additionally, this study suggests that approximately 40% of adult vitiligo in the US may be undiagnosed. Future studies should be performed to confirm these findings.

Reduced Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder in the 12 Months After Initiation of a Prescription Digital Therapeutic.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: reSET-O, an FDA-authorized prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) delivering cognitive behavioral therapy and contingency management to patients with opioid u®se disorder (OUD), may help improve clinical outcomes. One-year differences in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs post-PDT initiation were evaluated. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of healthcare claims data compared all-cause HCRU (across hospital facility encounters [sum of inpatient stays, treat-and-release emergency department [ED] visits, partial hospitalizations, and hospital outpatient department visits] and clinician services [procedure categories]) after PDT initiation (index) between reSET-O patients and controls. Overall and Medicaid-specific differences in HCRU, costs, and buprenorphine adherence were evaluated. FINDINGS: Cohorts included 901 reSET-O patients (median age 36 years, 62.4% female, 73.9% Medicaid) and 978 controls (median age 38 years, 51.1% female, 65.4% Medicaid). Compared to the control group, the reSET-O group experienced 12% fewer total unique hospital encounters (non-significant), driven by 28% fewer inpatient stays (IRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.96; P = 0.02), 56% fewer hospital readmissions [IRR 0.44; 95% CI 0.20-0.93; P = 0.033]), and 7% fewer ED visits (IRR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.09; P = 0.386). Total clinician services increased by 1391 events versus controls. Differences were greater among the Medicaid patients. Adjustment for concomitant baseline substance use and mental health disorders resulted in similar HCRU incidence rate ratios. Changes in all-cause HCRU drove per-patient per-year cost differences of - $2791 versus controls (- $3832 versus Medicaid controls). Adjusted mean medication possession ratio was 0.848 (SE 0.0118) at 12 months for reSET-O patients, which was significantly higher than controls (0.761 [SE 0.0108]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of reSET-O is associated with significant and durable real-world reductions in ED and inpatient (including readmissions) utilization, reduced net costs, and increased clinician services and buprenorphine adherence. Differences in costs versus controls were greatest among Medicaid patients. INFOGRAPHIC.

Real-World Characteristics and Treatment Patterns of Patients With Insomnia Prescribed Trazodone in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study sought to describe patient characteristics and treatment patterns among patients with insomnia prescribed trazodone in the United States. METHODS: This real-world, retrospective, descriptive cohort study used US commercial insurance claims from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2019. The index date was the first prescription for trazodone between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, with 6 months for the preindex period and ≥6 months for the postindex period. FINDINGS: Among 5.8 million patients with insomnia, 17.7% were prescribed trazodone, and 357,380 adults (6.2%) and 7564 children (0.1%) met the study eligibility criteria. The mean (SD) age was 48.8 (15.8) years for adults and 14.8 (2.7) years for pediatrics. Most patients were female (229,280 adults [64.2%] and 4481 children [59.2%]). Insomnia due to mental disorder was the most common specific diagnosis. The most common (>25%) comorbid conditions were anxiety, depression, and hypertensive disease, and 1 of 10 had a history of substance abuse. Zolpidem was previously prescribed (73,342 adults [20.5%] and 233 children [3.1%]) and continued to be prescribed. Concomitant antidepressants were most common (216,893 adults [60.7%] and 5414 children [71.6%]), but benzodiazepines (132,740 adults [37.1%] and 1188 children [15.7%]), antiepileptics (115,064 adults [32.2%] and 2103 children [27.8%]), nonbenzodiazepines (90,946 adults [25.4%] and 542 children [7.2%]), and antipsychotics (40,490 adults [11.3%] and 2063 children [27.3%]) were also prescribed. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides current evidence that trazodone use is widespread among patients with insomnia and is often associated with other specific comorbidities, such as psychiatric conditions. A deeper knowledge of the real-world management of patients with insomnia may facilitate steps toward improving sleep quality, daytime functioning, and clinical outcomes for patients.

Real-world reduction in healthcare resource utilization following treatment of opioid use disorder with reSET-O, a novel prescription digital therapeutic.

INTRODUCTION: Buprenorphine medication assisted treatment (B-MAT) adherence for opioid use disorder (OUD) is suboptimal. reSET-O, an FDA-cleared prescription digital therapeutic, delivers neurobehavioral therapy (community-reinforcement approach+fluency training+contingency management) to B-MAT-treated OUD patients. METHODS: This retrospective claims study (10/01/2018-10/31/2019) evaluated healthcare resource utilization up to 6 months before/after reSET-O initiation. Repeated-measures negative binomial models compared incidences of encounters/procedures. Net change in costs was assessed. RESULTS: Among 351 patients (mean age 37; 59.5% female; 82.6% Medicaid), 334 had pharmacy claims and 240 (71.9%) received buprenorphine pre-/post-index (medication possession ratio 0.73 and 0.82, respectively; P = 0.004). Facility encounters decreased, with 45 fewer inpatient (P = 0.024) and 27 fewer emergency department (ED) visits (P = 0.247). Clinical encounters with largest changes were drug testing (638 fewer; P < 0.001), psychiatry (349 fewer; P = 0.036), case management (176 additional; P = 0.588), other pathology/laboratory (166 fewer; P = 0.039), office/other outpatient (154 fewer; P = 0.302), behavioral rehabilitation (111 additional; P = 0.124), alcohol/substance rehabilitation (96 fewer; P = 0.348), other rehabilitation (66 fewer; P = 0.387), mental health rehabilitation (61 additional; P = 0.097), and surgery (60 fewer; P = 0.070). Changes in facility/clinical encounters saved $2,150/patient. CONCLUSION: reSET-O initiation was associated with fewer inpatient, ED, and other clinical encounters, increased case management/rehabilitative services, and lower net costs over six months. EXPERT OPINION: Real-world evidence is helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in usual-care conditions, outside of controlled research environments. Large observational studies based on health care claims are important to understand the actual pharmacoeconomic and outcomes impact of interventions at the health care system and population level.

Real-world changes in US health system hospital-based services following treatment with a prescription digital therapeutic for opioid use disorder.

Outcomes associated with buprenorphine therapy for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) are suboptimal. reSET-O is an FDA-authorized prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) delivering neurobehavioral therapy via mobile devices to patients with OUD treated with buprenorphine. This analysis evaluated the net impact of reSET-O on medical costs among actively-engaged reSET-O patients using real-world observations. This real-world retrospective analysis of health care claims between October 2018 and October 2019 evaluated health care resource utilization up to 6 months before and 6 months after the initiation of a reSET-O prescription after accounting for the subset of patients not continuing on therapy after week 1 (non-engaged patients). Repeated-measures negative binomial models compared incidences of hospital-based encounters/procedures adjusted for days in each period as well as associated costs. The number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid an inpatient visit was calculated. Of the 351 patients who were prescribed reSET-O, 321 met the criteria of active engagement. Treatment with reSET-O was associated with a substantial reduction in medical costs of -$765,450 (-$2,385/patient, $235/patient greater than a previous analysis in which non-engaged patients were included) in the 6-month period after initiation. The gross reSET-O prescription cost of $584,415 ($1,665/patient) was substantially offset by $49,950 ($142.31/patient) in refunds to payers. The medical cost reduction in engaged patients offset the cost of the therapeutic resulting in an overall cost reduction of -$230,985 in this cohort (net savings of -$720 per patient). The number needed to treat to avoid an inpatient visit was 4.8. Engagement and continued treatment with reSET-O in patients with OUD treated with buprenorphine is associated with substantial real-world reductions in medical costs in the 6-month period following the initiation of the reSET-O prescription.

Comparison of Healthcare Resource Utilization Between Patients Who Engaged or Did Not Engage With a Prescription Digital Therapeutic for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: A prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) (reSET-O®) may expand access to behavioral treatment for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) treated with buprenorphine, but long-term data on effectiveness are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among patients who engaged with reSET-O and buprenorphine compared to similar patients in recovery treated with buprenorphine who did not fill their reSET-O script or engage with the PDT beyond week one. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of facility and clinical service claims data was conducted in adults with PDT initiation and between 12 weeks and 9 months of continuous enrollment in a health plan after initiation. Patients who filled their prescription and engaged with the therapeutic were compared to patients who filled the prescription but did not engage beyond week one (NE), and patients who did not fill the prescription (NR) (the latter two groups combined into one group hereafter referred to as "non-engagers"). Comparisons were analyzed using a repeated-measures negative binomial model of encounters/procedures, adjusted for number of days in each period. Associated cost trends assessed using current Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients redeemed a prescription and engaged with the PDT (mean age 37.5 years, 63.1% female, 84% Medicaid), and 64 patients did not engage with the PDT (mean age 39.5 years, 32.8% female, 73.4% Medicaid). Total cost of hospital facility encounters was $2693 for engaged patients vs $6130 for non-engaged patients. Engaged patients had somewhat higher rates of certain clinician services. Total facility and clinician services costs for engaged vs non-engaged patients were $8733 vs $11,441, for a net cost savings over 9 months of $2708 per patient who engaged with reSET-O. CONCLUSION: Patients who engaged with an OUD-specific PDT had a net cost reduction for inpatient and outpatient services of $2708 per patient over 9 months compared to patients who did not engage with the PDT, despite similar levels of buprenorphine adherence.

A Large Cross-Sectional Survey Study of the Prevalence of Alopecia Areata in the United States.

PURPOSE: Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by the development of non-scarring alopecia. The prevalence is not well known, and estimates vary considerably with no recent estimates in the United States (US). The objective of this study was to define the current AA point prevalence estimate among the general population in the US overall and by severity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We administered an online, cross-sectional survey to a representative sample of the US population. Participants self-screening as positive for AA using the Alopecia Assessment Tool (ALTO) also completed the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) to measure the severity of disease as a percent of scalp hair loss. Self-reported AA participants were invited to upload photographs for adjudication of AA by 3 clinicians. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 43 years. Approximately half of the participants (49.2%) were male, and the majority were white (77.1%) and not of Hispanic origin (93.2%). Among the 511 self-reported AA participants, 104 (20.4%) uploaded photographs for clinician evaluation. Clinician-adjudicated point prevalence of AA was 0.21% (95% CI: 0.17%, 0.25%) overall, 0.12% (95% CI: 0.09%, 0.15%) for "mild" disease (≤50% SALT score), and 0.09% (95% CI: 0.06%, 0.11%) for "moderate to severe" disease (>50% SALT score) with 0.04% (95% CI: 0.02%, 0.06%) for the alopecia totalis/alopecia universalis (100% SALT score) "moderate to severe" subgroup. The average SALT score was 44.4% overall, 8.8% for "mild", and 93.4% for "moderate to severe". CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the current AA prevalence in the US is similar to the upper estimates from the 1970s at approximately 0.21% (700,000 persons) with the current prevalence of "moderate to severe" disease at approximately 0.09% (300,000 persons). Given this prevalence and the substantial impact of AA on quality of life, the burden of AA within the US is considerable.

Medical resource utilization in dermatomyositis/polymyositis patients treated with repository corticotropin injection, intravenous immunoglobulin, and/or rituximab.

BACKGROUND: Dermatomyositis and polymyositis (DM/PM) are rare, incurable inflammatory diseases that cause progressive muscle weakness and can be associated with increased medical resource use (MRU). When corticosteroid treatment is unsuccessful, patients may receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), rituximab, or repository corticotropin injection (RCI). This study compared real-world, non-medication MRU between patients treated with RCI and those treated with IVIg and/or rituximab for DM/PM. METHODS: Claims of DM/PM patients were analyzed from the combination of three commercial health insurance databases in the United States from July 2009 to June 2014. Patients treated with RCI were propensity score matched to those treated with IVIg, rituximab, and both (IVIg+rituximab) based on demographics, prior clinical characteristics, and prior MRU. Per-patient per-month (PPPM) MRU and costs were compared using Poisson regression and generalized linear modeling, respectively. RESULTS: One-hundred thirty-two RCI, 1,150 IVIg, and 562 rituximab patients had an average age of 52.6, 46.6, and 51.7 years, respectively, and roughly two-thirds were female. After matching, there were no significant differences in demographics or prior clinical characteristics. RCI patients had fewer PPPM hospitalizations (0.09 vs 0.17; P=0.049), shorter length of stay (LOS; 3.24 days vs 4.55 days; P=0.004), PPPM hospital outpatient department (HOPD) visits (0.60 vs 1.39; P<0.001), and PPPM physician office visits (2.01 vs 2.33; P=0.035) than IVIg. RCI had fewer PPPM HOPD visits (0.56 vs 0.92; P<0.001) than rituximab. Patients treated with RCI had shorter LOS (2.18 days vs 5.15; P<0.001) and less PPPM HOPD visits (0.53 vs 1.26; P<0.001) than IVIg+rituximab. Total non-medication PPPM costs were 23%-75% lower for RCI compared to IVIg ($2,126 vs $3,964; P<0.001), rituximab ($2,008 vs $2,607; P=0.018), and IVIg+rituximab ($1,234 vs $4,858; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with RCI had less PPPM non-medication MRU and costs than those treated with IVIg and/or rituximab, particularly in the hospital setting where significant costs are incurred.

Reported side effects, bother, satisfaction, and adherence in patients taking hydrocodone for non-cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is a prevalent condition that often involves a neuropathic component. Hydrocodone is one of the most widely used opioids for pain but is often associated with side effects (SEs). This study sought to characterize the experience of patients taking hydrocodone for non-cancer pain. METHODS: A nationwide survey of adults in the United States taking hydrocodone for non-cancer pain was conducted. The survey included questions to characterize these patients and their experience with hydrocodone-related SEs. A neuropathic pain subgroup also was examined. RESULTS: Among 630 respondents, the average age was 50.1 years (14.25). Most (90.6 percent) were Caucasian and 72.5 percent were female. Back pain or low back pain was the most common (42.1 percent) type of pain. Almost three-fourths (73.3 percent) experienced at least one SE, and 67.3 percent reported being bothered. More than three-fourths (78.3 percent) reported being satisfied with hydrocodone relieving pain; however, less (74.8 percent) reported being satisfied with it overall. More than one-fourth (27.6 percent) reported taking hydrocodone less than instructed with 41.4 percent of them reporting that SEs were bothersome as a reason. A greater percent of the neuropathic pain subgroup (266 respondents) experienced at least one SE (80.8 percent) and were bothered by them (75.6 percent). Overall satisfaction was slightly lower (71.1 percent) among these respondents, and among the 24.8 percent taking less than instructed, more than half (54.5 percent) reported that SEs were bothersome as a reason. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an unmet need for better therapeutic options to manage pain, including neuropathic pain. Therapies that offer improved tolerability also may increase adherence, which could affect overall satisfaction and response to pain management.

Economic study on the impact of side effects in patients taking oxycodone controlled-release for noncancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a prevalent condition in the United States. Musculoskeletal pain, including joint and back pain, is the most common type of chronic pain, and many patients with back pain have a neuropathic component. Pain has direct economic consequences. While oxycodone controlled-release (CR) is one of the most widely used oral long-acting opioids for pain, including pain with a neuropathic component, it is often associated with bothersome side effects, resulting in additional medical resource use (MRU) and costs. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact on MRU and costs to payers of side effects in patients taking oxycodone CR alone or in combination with other pain medications for noncancer pain (including those with neuropathic pain symptoms). METHODS: A nationwide convenience sample of adults in the United States, who participated in a survey research panel and reported current use of oxycodone CR for noncancer pain, completed an online survey between November 2, 2010, and December 13, 2010. Respondents were excluded if they reported current use of other extended-release or long-acting opioid prescription medications. The survey consisted of questions on demographics, clinical characteristics, pain characteristics, experience with pain medication, and MRU associated with side effects. Payer costs were calculated based on the MRU reported by the respondents multiplied by Medicare reimbursement rates for hospitalizations and outpatient visits and average wholesale price (AWP) minus 20% for medications. A subgroup of patients who reported neuropathic pain symptoms also was examined. RESULTS: After applying the exclusion criteria, 432 respondents completed the survey. Approximately half of the respondents (n = 219; 50.7%) reported neuropathic pain symptoms. The majority of respondents were Caucasian (88.4%) and female (63.7%) with an average age of 41.8 years (14.89). Respondents most frequently reported low back pain (41.2%), followed by osteoarthritis/rheumatoid arthritis (20.4%), neuropathic pain (10.6%), and fibromyalgia (9.0%). Respondents reported having their pain condition for an average of 5.4 (7.42) years. On days when taken, respondents reported a mean oxycodone CR daily dose of 83.3 mg (126.93) taken in an average of 2 doses. Most respondents (82.4%) reported experiencing at least 1 side effect with 77.5% being bothered by at least 1 side effect. The most frequently reported side effects ( greater than 25%) were drowsiness (41.4%), constipation (37.0%), fatigue or daytime sleepiness (36.6%), and dizziness (27.1%). Among respondents who reported being bothered by one or more side effects in the previous month, MRU associated with side effects was reported by 39.1% of respondents and significantly increased as the level of side-effect bother increased from 19.8% among those "A little bit bothered" to 38.4% among those "Bothered" to 61.0% among those "Extremely bothered" (P less than 0.001). Additionally, total average payer costs (in 2010 dollars) per respondent in the previous month associated with side effects were $238 ($1,159) and also significantly increased as the level of side-effect bother increased from $61 ($512) among those "A little bit bothered" to $238 ($1,160) among those "Bothered" to $425 ($1,561) among those "Extremely bothered" (P less than 0.001). Results reported in the neuropathic pain subgroup were similar to results reported in the total study sample. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults taking oxycodone CR for chronic noncancer pain (with or without a neuropathic pain component), over three-fourths reported being bothered by side effects. Respondents who reported higher levels of side-effect bother also reported greater MRU, resulting in increased payer costs. The results of this study provide further support of the econo-mic burden to payers associated with opioid-related side effects in patients with chronic noncancer pain, with and without neuropathic pain.

Oxycodone-related side effects: impact on degree of bother, adherence, pain relief, satisfaction, and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES: Oxycodone immediate-release, alone or in combination (hereafter, oxycodone), is widely used to treat pain and is often associated with bothersome side effects. The objective was to assess side effect frequency, degree of bother, and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: An online survey was completed by a nationwide convenience sample of patients currently taking oxycodone for nonmalignant pain. Detailed data on any oxycodone-related side effects were collected. Relationships between side effects, pain relief and HRQoL (Physical Component Summary [PCS] and Mental Component Summary [MCS] of the Short Form 12-Item Health Survey) were explored. RESULTS: Among 601 respondents (average 45 years, 85.0 percent Caucasian, 69.1 percent female, 61.1 percent on oxycodone > 30 days), 84.0 percent were bothered by side effects with 30.8 percent quite a bit or extremely bothered. Over half were bothered by drowsiness (56.2 percent) and constipation (53.1 percent), over two-fifths by lightheadedness (43.6 percent) and dizziness (42.1 percent), approximately one-third by headache (33.1 percent) and nausea (31.3 percent), 27.6 percent itching, and 14.8 percent vomiting, which affected adherence to prescribed dosing regimens and, thus, is inversely associated with the level of pain relief. Patients who experienced less than 50 percent pain relief from oxycodone had worse PCS (33.9 vs 35.7; p = 0.038) and MCS (38.5 vs 42.4; p < 0.001) scores when compared with those who experienced 50 percent or more pain relief CONCLUSIONS: The majority of survey respondents experienced side effects of oxycodone, with a majority being bothered by side effects and impacting their QoL. This raises a question about the unmet need for pain medications with improved side effect profiles.