Examining the impact of excessive daytime sleepiness on utility scores in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea and/or narcolepsy in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a cardinal symptom of narcolepsy and affects many patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). EDS is associated with reduced quality of life, increased accident risk, and poor workplace performance. Given the impact of EDS, the ability to predict health-related utility from sleepiness is valuable for examining the cost effectiveness of novel treatments. The aim of this study was to examine the association between EDS and EQ-5D in patients with OSA and/or narcolepsy by modelling EQ-5D utility scores from Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Europe 2016/2017 National Health and Wellness Survey, an online, general population survey, designed to represent the age and gender composition of each country's adult population. Analyses included 2,348 patients self-reporting symptomatic and diagnosed OSA (n = 2,277), narcolepsy (n = 48), or both (n = 23). Multivariable models were used to examine ESS as a predictor of EQ-5D utility while adjusting for covariates of interest. Results were validated following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidelines for predictive modelling. RESULTS: Utility decreased as EDS severity increased (no EDS: 0.711 ± 0.251, mild: 0.685 ± 0.261, moderate: 0.643 ± 0.268, severe: 0.559 ± 0.323). Whereas participants with only OSA or only narcolepsy did not differ in utility, those with both conditions had lower scores (0.685 ± 0.266 and 0.627 ± 0.325 vs. 0.439 ± 0.340, respectively). Piecewise linear regression identified a single breakpoint at ESS score of 11.29. In the final model, for each point increase in ESS score, the corresponding decrease in EQ-5D utility was larger among patients with ESS scores ≥ 12 compared to patients with ESS scores ≤ 11 (model slopes: -0.0131 vs. -0.0026, respectively). Findings from the validation sample confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the impact of sleepiness on quality of life (QoL) and its negative impact irrespective of sleep condition (OSA or narcolepsy). The breakpoint identified is relatively consistent with the established ESS cutoff score ≥ 11, which demarcates pathological sleepiness. Furthermore, as EDS severity worsens (increases) on the ESS, the impact on QoL is greater.

Diagnosis, consultation, treatment, and impact of migraine in the US: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study.

OBJECTIVE: The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care of MigrainE (OVERCOME; United States) study is a multicohort, longitudinal web survey that assesses symptomatology, consulting, diagnosis, treatment, and impact of migraine in the United States. BACKGROUND: Regularly updating population-based views of migraine in the United States provides a method for assessing the quality of ongoing migraine care and identifying unmet needs. METHODS: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 migraine cohort involved: (I) creating a demographically representative sample of US adults using quota sampling (n = 97,478), (II) identifying people with active migraine in the past year via a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire and/or self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine (n = 24,272), and (III) assessing consultation, diagnosis, and treatment of migraine (n = 21,143). The current manuscript evaluated whether those with low frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; 0-3 monthly headache days) differed from other categories on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Among the migraine cohort (n = 21,143), 19,888 (94.1%) met our International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition-based case definition of migraine and 12,905 (61.0%) self-reported a medical diagnosis of migraine. Respondents' mean (SD) age was 42.2 (15.0) years; 15,697 (74.2%) were women. Having at least moderate disability was common (n = 8965; 42.4%) and around half (n = 10,783; 51.0%) had consulted a medical professional for migraine care in the past year. Only 4792 (22.7%) of respondents were currently using a triptan. Overall, 8539 (40.4%) were eligible for migraine preventive medication and 3555 (16.8%) were currently using migraine preventive medication. Those with LFEM differed from moderate and high frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine on nearly all measures of consulting, diagnosis, and treatment. CONCLUSION: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 cohort revealed slow but steady progress in diagnosis and preventive treatment of migraine. However, despite significant impact among the population, many with migraine have unmet needs related to consulting for migraine, migraine diagnosis, and getting potentially beneficial migraine treatment. Moreover, it demonstrated the heterogeneity and varying unmet needs within episodic migraine.

Severity of illness and the weekend mortality effect: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Weekend admission to the hospital has been found to be associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates, but the cause for this phenomenon remains controversial. US based studies have been limited in their characterization of the weekend patient population, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the implications of this effect. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, examining de-identified, patient level data from 2015 to 2017 at US academic medical centers submitting data to the Vizient database, comparing demographic and clinical risk profiles, as well as mortality, cost and length of stay, between weekend and weekday patient populations. Between-group differences in mortality were assessed using the chi-square test for categorical measures and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous measures. Logistic regression models were used to test the multivariate association of weekend admission and other patient-level factors with death, LOS, etc. RESULTS: We analyzed 10,365,605 adult inpatient encounters. Within the weekend patient population, 30.6% of patients were categorized as having either a major or extreme risk of mortality on admission, as compared to 23.7% on weekdays (p < 0.001). We found a significantly increased unadjusted mortality rate associated with weekend admission (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.45-1.47) which was substantially attenuated after adjusting for disease severity and other demographic covariates, though remained significant (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.04-1.06). In the subgroup of non-elective admissions, the unadjusted OR for death was 1.14 (95% CI 1.13-1.15), and the adjusted OR was 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05). Weekend admission was associated with a longer median LOS (4 vs 3 days in the weekday group; p < 0.01), but a lower median cost ($8224 vs $9999 dollars in the weekday group; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The patient population admitted on weekends is proportionally higher risk than the population admitted on weekdays, and the observed weekend mortality effect is largely attributable to this risk imbalance.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Patients Diagnosed with Epilepsy Being Treated with Perampanel.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a complex disorder that can affect patients' medical, psychological, and social well-being. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), satisfaction, and adherence in adult patients diagnosed with epilepsy treated with perampanel in the United States (US). METHODS: A US-based, multicenter, observational cross-sectional survey was completed by 61 patients taking perampanel with or without other antiseizure medications (ASMs). Respondents were ≥18 years old, had a physician-confirmed diagnosis of epilepsy, used perampanel for ≥4 months, and provided informed consent. Patients responded to questions concerning their demographic characteristics, treatment history, experiences before perampanel, experiences while taking perampanel, HRQoL, treatment satisfaction, and medication adherence. RESULTS: Patients (N=61) were 42.8 years old on average; majority were female (63.9%) and white (75.4%). Mean time on perampanel was 2.5 years, with sodium channel blockers often (55.7%) used concomitantly with perampanel. Patients reported, on average, 5.5 (standard deviation [SD]=13.2) seizures/month after initiating perampanel, whereas these same patients reported experiencing 20.4 (SD=60.0) seizures/month prior to perampanel. When comparing their experience on perampanel with their experience with previous ASMs, more patients "strongly agreed" that perampanel allowed them to live a more normal life (36.1% vs 27.5%) and worked as intended if they missed taking a dose (16.4% vs 7.8%). Average satisfaction scores were high, with ratings of 71.8 for effectiveness, 84.0 for convenience, and 71.9 for global satisfaction (0-100 scores). Perampanel use was associated with improvements in HRQoL and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety. The majority of patients were adherent (62.3%) to perampanel. DISCUSSION: Perampanel use was associated with reductions in number of seizures, better HRQoL, and high adherence rates. These results provide initial evidence that perampanel can be an effective, tolerable, and valid option for patients with epilepsy in the real world.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of prevention-eligible patients with migraine in the US: a linked national survey and administrative claims database study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize burden of migraine in prevention-eligible patients compared with prevention non-eligible patients in the United States (US). Receipt of preventive therapy was also examined among prevention-eligible patients. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized data from the 2017 US National Health and Wellness Survey linked with medical and pharmacy claims. Patients aged ≥18 years who self-reported experiencing migraine and had confirmed evidence of migraine (≥1 medical or pharmacy claim) were included. Prevention eligibility was based on number of headache days in the past 30 days (prevention-eligible: ≥4 and prevention non-eligible: <4). Descriptive statistics summarized study variables; bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to examine the association of prevention-eligibility status with outcomes. RESULTS: Analyses included 450 patients, 291 (65%) prevention-eligible, and of these 56 (19%) received preventive therapy. Overall, patients were 42.98 ± 14.51 years old; 84% were female. Prevention-eligible patients reported significantly more migraine headache days in the past 6 months (29.27 ± 37.96 vs. 8.61 ± 7.88), had lower mental component summary scores (35.80 ± 2.73 vs. 37.90 ± 2.96), and more presenteeism (47.30 ± 2.98% vs. 37.90 ± 2.60%), overall work impairment (46.30 ± 2.87% vs. 37.90 ± 2.55%) and activity days missed due to migraine (8.16 ± 3.05 vs. 3.82 ± 1.58) than prevention non-eligible patients (all p<.001). Prevention-eligible patients receiving preventive therapy reported more migraine headache days during the past month (9.21 ± 7.99 vs. 6.06 ± 7.10; p=.002) and activity days lost due to migraine (18.39 ± 28.08 vs. 10.69 ± 21.43, p=.015) than those not receiving preventive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention-eligible patients experience greater burden due to migraine, including more headache days, worse health-related quality-of-life, and greater work and activity impairment than prevention non-eligible patients.

Strategies of Wait-listing for Heart Transplant vs Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support Alone for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure.

Importance: Given the shortage of donor hearts and improvement in outcomes with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy, a relevant but, to date, unanswered question is whether select patients with advanced heart failure should receive LVAD destination therapy as an alternative to heart transplant. Objective: To determine whether a strategy of LVAD destination therapy is associated with similar survival benefit as wait-listing for heart transplant with or without LVAD therapy among patients with advanced heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective propensity-matched cohort analysis used data on heart transplants from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry and LVAD implants from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. The matched LVAD destination therapy cohort included 3411 patients. Data analysis for this study was conducted from December 22, 2017, to May 24, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival at 5 years was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: In total, 8281 patients had albumin level, creatinine level, and BMI data recorded and were included in the analysis. Despite propensity score matching, the 3411 patients receiving LVAD destination therapy still tended to be slightly older than the 3411 patients wait-listed for heart transplant (64.0 years [interquartile range, 55.0-70.0 years] vs 60.0 [interquartile range, 54.0-65.0 years]; P < .001), but there was no significant difference in sex (2701 men [79.2%] vs 2648 men [77.6%]; P = .13). After propensity score matching for age, sex, body mass index, renal function, and albumin level, 3411 patients were wait-listed for heart transplant. This included 1607 patients with bridge to transplant LVAD therapy and 1804 patients without LVAD. The strategy of wait-listing for heart transplant was associated with better 5-year survival than LVAD destination therapy (risk ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.38-0.46) after matching and adjusting for key clinical factors. This survival advantage was associated with heart transplant (adjusted risk ratio for time-dependent transplant status, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.24-0.32). Conclusions and Relevance: The present analysis suggests that heart transplant with or without bridge to transplant LVAD therapy was associated with superior 5-year survival compared with LVAD destination therapy among patients matched on several relevant clinical factors. Continued improvement in LVAD technology, along with prospective comparative research, appears to be needed to amend this strategy.