Mapping of the Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire (GSF-Q) into EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: The short, self-administered Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) Symptom Frequency Questionnaire (GSFQ) is a specific Quality of Life (QoL) instrument which measures the impact of GERD symptoms on QoL. This study aims to map the specific scores in GSFQ into two generic instruments: SF-6D and EQ-5D-3 L, in order to obtain utility estimates derived from the GERD condition. METHOD: A national representative sample of GERD patients was selected, stratified by gender, age (< 45, ≥45 years) and GERD severity (0-I, II-IV Savary-Miller score) for validation purposes. Age, gender, BMI, GERD diagnose, GERD severity, associated comorbidities and risk factors were recorded. GSFQ, SF-6D, EQ-5D-3 L, and the HRQoL Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were answered by patients. Several mapping methods were estimated, regression using dummy variables, and linear, quadratic and cubic regression using optimal factor scores. The use of a GERD aggregated summary severity derived from the GSFQ was dimed the best predictor. Overall Mean Absolute Error (MAE), overall Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) were used as goodness-of-fit (GOF) indexes to compare models. RESULTS: A total of 3405 patients were recruited by 490 clinicians. Mean age was 49 (±14.4) years and 49.8% were women. Reported comorbidities were clustered in 6 antecedents and 15 concomitant pathologies. Aggregation of levels for the frequency of symptoms items was found more suitable for estimation. Regression weights were found to follow a monotonous progressive pattern. Overall MAE ranged from 0.092 to 0.094 for SF-6D utility prediction and from 0.008 to 0.08 for EQ-5D-3 L, while MAPE values ranged from 27.9 to 29% for SF-6D and from 36.8 to 38.4% for EQ-5D-3 L. Cubic regression GOF demonstrated a better fit. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to translate specific GSFQ scores assessing GERD condition into generic SF-6D and EQ-5D-3 L utility values. Although regression using dummy variables is a suitable mapping procedure, other alternative mapping methods convey better fit, in particular cubic regression.

Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments using the EMPRO tool.

PURPOSE: The objective was to obtain a standardized evaluation of available specific and generic breast cancer health-related quality-of-life instruments. METHODS: We carried out systematic literature reviews in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify manuscripts which contained information regarding either the development process or metric properties of health-related quality-of-life instruments used among breast cancer patients. Each instrument was evaluated independently by two researchers, and occasionally a third one, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall score and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0-100, worst to best): concept and measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and alternative forms. RESULTS: FACT-B was the instrument with the best global performance, obtaining an overall EMPRO score of 79.27. It was also the most accurate instrument on the Concept and Measurement Model, Reliability, and Interpretability attributes. Four more instruments scored over 50 points on the overall score, which summarizes the five attribute-specific scores: EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, WHO-QOL BREF, and SF-36. An overall score of at least 50 points implies that the use of these instruments could be recommended for assessing health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. CONCLUSION: The FACT-B scored the highest on overall on our EMPRO evaluation of instruments measuring health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients. However, depending on the purpose of the study, several instruments (EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, SF-36, and WHO-QOL BREF) have shown good performance in some of the specific individual dimensions included in the EMPRO.

Disability-adjusted-life-years losses in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a burden of illness study.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the disability-adjusted life years (DALY) in a nationwide representative sample of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The effects of drug-based therapy and risk factors for osteoporotic bone fractures on DALY losses were also explored. METHODS: DALY were estimated based on participant's clinical characteristics and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) data obtained from a cross-sectional, epidemiological one-visit study (the GINERISK study). The study enrolled postmenopausal women (at least 12-months after their last menstrual period) with osteoporosis, above 18-years old, who attended Spanish outpatient Gynaecology clinics. HRQoL was assessed using the generic SF-12v2 questionnaire, which was used to derive disutility values. Mortality rates were extracted from the Spanish national statistics database. Factors explored to be associated with DALY losses were examined using ANOVA, ANCOVA and MANCOVA models. RESULTS: DALY could be computed in 2,782 (67%) out of 4,157 postmenopausal women, with a mean (95% CI) age of 61.0 (60.7-61.2) years. Overall individual undiscounted DALY per woman were 6.1 (5.9-6.2), resulting to be significantly higher in women with severe osteoporosis with prior bone fracture; 7.8 (7.2-8.4) compared to osteoporotic women [5.8 (5.6-6.0)] or postmenopausal women with a BMD > -2.5 T-score that received a drug-based therapy [6.2 (5.8-6.5)]; F = 27.0 (P < 0.01). Models explaining the variation in the levels of health based on the use of a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) or possession of risk factors for osteoporotic BF were found (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DALY losses were considerable amongst postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Not having a prior bone fracture, being older, using a SERM and having less osteoporotic risk factors were all linked to less DALY losses.

Clinical and economic outcomes of adjunctive therapy with pregabalin or usual care in generalized anxiety disorder patients with partial response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: This study is done to compare the effect of adjunctive therapy with pregabalin versus usual care (UC) on health-care costs and clinical and patients consequences in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) subjects with partial response (PR) to a previous selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) course in medical practice in Spain. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of patients with PR to SSRI monotherapy enrolled in a prospective 6-month naturalistic study was done. PR was defined as a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale score ≥3 and insufficient response with persistence of anxiety symptoms ≥16 in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). Two groups were analyzed: 1) adjunctive therapy (AT) with pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) to existing therapy and 2) UC (switching to a different SSRI or adding another anxiolytic different than pregabalin). Costs included GAD-related health-care resources utilization. Consequences were a combination of psychiatrist-based measurements [HAM-A, CGI, and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)] and patient-reported outcomes [Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS-sleep) scale, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II) and quality-of-life (Euro Qol-5D (EQ-5D)]. Changes in both health-care costs and scale scores were compared separately at end-of-trial visit by a general linear model with covariates. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-six newly prescribed pregabalin and 239 UC GAD patients [mean (SD) HAM-A 26.7 (6.9) and CGI 4.1 (0.5)] were analyzed. Adding pregabalin was associated with significantly higher mean (95% CI) score reductions vs. UC in HAM-A [-14.9 (-15.6; -14.2) vs. -11.2 (-12.2; -10.2), p < 0.001] and MADRS [-11.6 (-12.2; -10.9) vs. -7.8 (-8.7; -6.8), p < 0.001]. Changes in all patient-reported outcomes favored significantly patients receiving pregabalin, including quality-of-life gain; 26.4 (24.7; 28.1) vs. 19.4 (17.1; 21.6) in the EQ-VAS, p < 0.001. Health-care costs were significantly reduced in both cohorts yielding similar 6-month costs; €1,565 (1,426; 1,703) pregabalin and €1,406 (1,200; 1,611) UC, p = 0.777. The effect of sex on costs and consequences were negligible. CONCLUSION: In medical practice, GAD patients with PR to SSRI experienced greater consequence improvements with adjunctive therapy with pregabalin versus UC, without increasing health-care cost. The effect of pregabalin was independent of patient gender.

Antimuscarinic persistence patterns in newly treated patients with overactive bladder: a retrospective comparative analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Treatment persistence is low in patients with overactive bladder (OAB), but persistence may vary among antimuscarinic agents. This study compared treatment persistence in patients with OAB receiving fesoterodine, solifenacin, or tolterodine as their initial OAB prescription in a routine clinical practice setting. METHODS: This retrospective study used medical records from primary healthcare centers in three locations in Spain; records from patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of OAB who initiated antimuscarinic treatment for OAB (fesoterodine, tolterodine, or solifenacin) were included. The first prescription of one of the OAB study medications was considered the index date; patients were followed for ≥52 weeks. Persistence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 1,971 records of patients (58.3 % women; mean age 70.1 years) initiating treatment with fesoterodine (n = 302), solifenacin (n = 952), or tolterodine (n = 717) were included. Unadjusted mean (±SD) treatment duration was 31.5 ± 17.6 weeks for fesoterodine, 29.9 ± 21.4 for solifenacin and 29.0 ± 21.6 for tolterodine (p = 0.217). At week 52, 35.8 % of fesoterodine-treated patients remained on their initial therapy, versus 31.9 % of solifenacin-treated (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95 % CI, 1.05-1.47; p = 0.011) and 30.9 % of tolterodine-treated (HR = 1.28; 95 % CI, 1.07-1.52; p = 0.006) patients. Findings were consistent when the definition for discontinuation was varied. CONCLUSIONS: Overall persistence at week 52 was low, but the cumulative probability of persisting with initial therapy was significantly higher for fesoterodine than for solifenacin or tolterodine in clinical practice in Spain.

Detecting changes in patient treatment satisfaction with medicines: the SATMED-Q.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) has shown appropriate psychometric properties exploring patients' satisfaction with treatment. Responsiveness (sensitivity to change) and known-group validity, however, still remained unknown. Thus, the goal of this study was to explore such psychometric properties for the SATMED-Q. METHODS: We used data from a 6-month prospective study carried out in pain clinics, which included patients with chronic refractory pain of neuropathic origin who needed a change in their therapies. Sensitivity to change was assessed by comparing changes in the total and domain scores between baseline and end-of-trial visits according to patients' response criterion: pain reduction 50% or more (responder). Also, correlations between changes in pain intensity and satisfaction scores were computed. Known-groups validity was explored by comparing the degree of satisfaction between groups of different levels of pain. RESULTS: The sample was formed with 728 subjects (57.8 years, 61.0% women). After changing their therapy, 47% of the patients were considered responders, and pain intensity was reduced by an average of 42.9%±32.4% (P<0.001), which was significantly correlated (r =-0.524, P<0.001) with total treatment satisfaction improvement. The total score in the SATMED-Q was significantly higher in responders than in nonresponders: 80.9 (79.6-82.3) versus 66.5 (65.0-98.0) (P<0.001). Also, the instrument showed different scores of satisfaction according to different degrees of pain (mild, moderate, severe), F = 116.8 (P<0.001) in the total composite score and domains. CONCLUSION: The SATMED-Q was sensitive to changes in patients' satisfaction with treatment. In addition, patients' different heath statuses are correlated with different levels of satisfaction with treatment.

The Cornell-Brown scale for quality of life in dementia: Spanish adaptation and validation.

The objective of this study was to validate a Spanish version of the Cornell-Brown Scale (CBS) for quality of life (QoL) in dementia. One hundred persons with mild-to-moderate dementia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, 4th edition) were recruited and interviewed at 5 Spanish centers to obtain sociodemographic information, health perceptions, depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale 15-item version), functional ability (Barthel Index), dementia severity (Mini-Mental State Examination), specific QoL (CBS), and generic QoL (World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF version). Analysis was carried out using classical psychometric methods. Internal consistency reliability for the CBS was good (0.87). A priori hypotheses about the relationship between CBS and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF version psychological domain and Geriatric Depression Scale 15-item version were confirmed, indicating good construct validity. Regarding contrasting groups' differences, CBS scores significantly differentiated between healthy and unhealthy and depressed and nondepressed participants but not between those with mild and moderate dementia. The exploratory factor analysis showed a 5-factor solution, which accounted for 63.9% of the total variance of CBS. This study is the first to report the factor structure of the CBS. These results indicate that CBS is a useful tool in assessing persons with dementia. Replication of these results with larger samples is advised. The Spanish version of the CBS is reliable and valid in persons with mild/moderate dementia who are living at home and with a known caregiver.

A simulation model to estimate 10-year risk of coronary heart disease events in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders treated with second-generation antipsychotic drugs.

BACKGROUND: The risk for cardiovascular (CV) events has been shown to be considerably higher among schizophrenia patients than the general population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe a general stochastic simulation model for the treatment of schizophrenia related to CV-associated risks of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). METHODS: A model to simulate the expected 10-year incidence of all types of coronary heart disease (CHD) events in patients treated with SGAs was developed from the Cardiovascular, Lipid and Metabolic Outcomes Research in Schizophrenia (CLAMORS) study to reproduce baseline conditions. The CHD event risk was estimated through a locally adjusted Framingham risk function using the expected mean change in the CV risk factors from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials in Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study. RESULTS: The 10-year CHD event rate after treatment with SGAs was 0.181, 0.179, 0.176, and 0.172 for olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone, respectively. Relative risk was calculated relative to no treatment, and values were as follows: olanzapine, 1.03 ± 1.05 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.42), quetiapine, 1.02 ± 1.05 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.41), risperidone, 1.00 ± 0.99 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.36), and ziprasidone, 0.97 ± 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.31). There were approximately 25,269 CHD events over a 10-year period in schizophrenia patients treated with olanzapine, 25,157 events with quetiapine, 24,883 with risperidone, and 24,514 events with ziprasidone. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated outcomes suggest that each SGA shows a different level of CV event risk, with ziprasidone showing the lowest rate without any association for increased risk of CHD.

Clinical and resource utilization patterns in patients with refractory neuropathic pain prescribed pregabalin for the first time in routine medical practice in primary care settings in Spain.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical and resource utilization patterns in patients with refractory neuropathic pain (NeP) who were prescribed pregabalin for the first time in routine medical practice in primary care settings. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of a 12-week prospective observational study including pregabalin naïve adult patients with refractory chronic NeP of at least 6-months duration. Self-reported pain intensity, disability, sleep disturbances, symptoms of anxiety and depression, disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health care resource utilization, and corresponding costs were assessed in this post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled in the study, and three treatment groups were identified: (1) 598 patients replaced prior pain treatments with pregabalin as monotherapy; (2) 589 added pregabalin to their existing pain treatments; and (3) 167 other pain treatments were prescribed according with physician routine medical practice. Statistically significant differences were reported at baseline for intensity of pain, patient disability, severity of depressive symptoms, and HRQoL (P < 0.01 in all cases). No statistically significant differences were reported among the three treatment groups for anxiety severity or sleep disturbances. Subjects who received add-on pregabalin had greater use of direct and indirect resources vs the other groups, resulting in significantly higher quarterly overall costs per patient: €2,397 (2,308), €2,470 (1,857), and €3,110 (2,496), respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that primary care physicians chose pregabalin as an option for treating refractory patients who tended to have much more severe NeP profiles, costing society more than when they chose other therapeutic strategies not including pregabalin.

The screen for cognitive impairment in psychiatry: diagnostic-specific standardization in psychiatric ill patients.

BACKGROUND: The Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP) is a simple and easy to administer scale developed for screening cognitive deficits. This study presents the diagnostic-specific standardization data for this scale in a sample of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder patients. METHODS: Patients between 18 and 55 years who are in a stable phase of the disease, diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder, or bipolar I disorder were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: The SCIP-S was administered to 514 patients (57.9% male), divided into two age groups (18-39 and 40-55 years) and two educational level groups (less than and secondary or higher education). The performance of the patients on the SCIP-S is described and the transformed scores for each SCIP-S subtest, as well as the total score on the instrument, are presented as a percentile, z-score, T-scores, and IQ quotient. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first jointly developed benchmarks for a cognitive screening test exploring functional psychosis (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder), which provide increased information about patient's cognitive abilities. Having guidelines for interpreting SCIP-S scores represents a step forward in the clinical utility of this instrument and adds valuable information for its use.

Predicting self-perceived antimuscarinic therapy effectiveness on overactive bladder symptoms using the Overactive Bladder 8-Question Awareness Tool.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This work was designed to explore the ability of the self-administered Overactive Bladder 8-Question Awareness Tool (OAB-V8) to predict patient self-assessed effectiveness of antimuscarinic therapy on OAB symptoms in daily practice. Also, the ability of the tool to predict clinician evaluation of improvement was explored. METHODS: Patients of both genders, >18 years, with symptomatic OAB (score >8 on OAB-V8), and able to understand patient-reported outcome instruments were enrolled in this 3-month study. Patients were prescribed treatment with an antimuscarinic drug according to usual practice. Treatment effectiveness was assessed by the clinician and patient using the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement and Treatment Benefit Scale and by improved self-perceived quality of life using the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (OAB-q SF) 3 months after initiating or changing an antimuscarinic therapy. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were applied to explore the predictive validity of OAB-V8 scores at the baseline visit. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients (57.7 years, 67 % women) were analyzed. Based on baseline OAB-V8 scores, logistic regression models were capable of predicting clinical improvement and patient self-perceived treatment benefit in 70 % of cases. OAB-V8 scores significantly correlated with OAB-q SF domains at baseline: 0.790 and - 0.659 for symptom bother and health-related quality of life domains, respectively (p < 0.001 in both cases). Baseline OAB-V8 score was able to predict changes in both domains of the OAB-q SF: R (2) = 0.212 and 0.162 for symptom bother and health-related quality of life, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The OAB-V8 scale showed evidence of predictive validity for antimuscarinic effectiveness in daily practice based on physician assessment and patient self-assessment of improved quality of life and treatment benefit.

Health economics perspective of fesoterodine, tolterodine or solifenacin as first-time therapy for overactive bladder syndrome in the primary care setting in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) is associated with high healthcare costs, which may be partially driven by drug treatment. There is little comparative data on antimuscarinic drugs with respect to resource use and costs. This study was conducted to address this gap and the growing need for naturalistic studies comparing health economics outcomes in adult patients with OAB syndrome initiating treatment with different antimuscarinic drugs in a primary care setting in Spain. METHODS: Medical records from the databases of primary healthcare centres in three locations in Spain were assessed retrospectively. Men and women ≥18 years of age who initiated treatment with fesoterodine, tolterodine or solifenacin for OAB between 2008 and 2010 were followed for 52 weeks. Healthcare resource utilization and related costs in the Spanish National Health System were compared. Comparisons among drugs were made using multivariate general linear models adjusted for location, age, sex, time since diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity index, and medication possession ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1,971 medical records of patients (58.3% women; mean age, 70.1 [SD:10.6] years) initiating treatment with fesoterodine (n = 302), solifenacin (n = 952) or tolterodine (n = 717) were examined. Annual mean cost per patient was €1798 (95% CI: €1745; €1848). Adjusted mean (95% bootstrap CI) healthcare costs were significantly lower in patients receiving fesoterodine (€1639 [1542; 1725]) compared with solifenacin (€1780 [€1699; €1854], P = 0.022) or tolterodine (€1893 [€1815; €1969], P = 0.001). Cost differences occurred because of significantly fewer medical visits, and less use of absorbent products and OAB-related concomitant medication in the fesoterodine group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with solifenacin and tolterodine, fesoterodine was a cost-saving therapy for treatment of OAB in the primary care setting in Spain.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus usual care in daily practice in the treatment of refractory generalised anxiety disorder in Spain.

PURPOSE: To model the cost-effectiveness (CEA) of the use of pregabalin versus usual care (UC) in outpatients with refractory generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) treated in daily practice in mental health settings in Spain. METHODS: This CEA model used data extracted from a 6-month prospective non-interventional trial: the Amplification of Definition of ANxiety (ADAN) study, which was conducted to determine the cost-of-illness in GAD subjects. Refractory subjects were those who reported persistent symptoms of anxiety and showed suboptimal response in the Hamilton-anxiety scale (HAM-A ≥ 16) after a standard dose regimen of anxiolytics other than pregabalin, alone or in combination, over 6 months. The pregabalin arm was documented with data extracted from patients who received pregabalin in the study for the first time, added or replacing the existing therapy. In the UC arm, treatment might include one or more of the following: a serotonin selective reuptake inhibitor, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, other anti-depressants, a benzodiazepine or an anti-epileptic drug other than pregabalin. The time horizon of the modelling was 6 months in the base-case scenario, and the National Health System perspective was chosen to calculate costs. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, which were derived using the EQ-5D questionnaire, at baseline and end-of-trial visits. Results of the CEA model was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using bootstrapping techniques was also carried out to obtain the cost-effectiveness plane and the corresponding acceptability curve. RESULTS: Data from a total of 429 subjects per arm (mean HAM-A score 25.7) meeting eligible criteria for inclusion in CEA modelling were extracted from the original trial. Compared with UC, pregabalin (average dose 218 mg/day) was associated with significantly higher QALY gain; 0.1209 ± 0.1030 versus 0.0994 ± 0.0979 (P = 0.003), but increased healthcare costs as well; 1,272 ± 1,240 versus 1,070 ± 1,177 (P < 0.069) and drug costs 525 ± 252 versus 219 ± 211 (P < 0.001), resulting in an ICER of 15,804/QALY (95 % CI 6,661; 37,186) for healthcare costs and 15,165/QALY (7,947; 31,754) when drug costs were considered alone. A total of 94 % of re-samples fell below the threshold of 30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation modelling suggests that pregabalin may be cost-effective in comparison with UC in outpatients with refractory GAD treated in mental healthcare settings in daily practice in Spain.

A comparative cost-analysis of initiating pregabalin or SSRI/SNRI therapy in benzodiazepine-resistant patients with generalized anxiety disorder in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative healthcare costs, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS), of initiating treatment with either pregabalin, or SSRI/SNRI, as add-on therapies, in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), who are resistant to benzodiazepine-based therapy (BR). METHODS: BR out-patients with GAD (DSM-IV) who were included in a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study were selected for this post-hoc economic analysis. BR was defined as insufficient response, with persistence of symptoms of anxiety (HAM-Anxiety scale≥16), after a 6-month course of benzodiazepines. Patients had not been previously exposed to pregabalin or SSRI/SNRI. Healthcare resource utilization (drugs, medical visits, hospitalizations, etc.) associated with GAD was collected at baseline and end-of-trial visits. Related costs were estimated at each visit and adjusted changes were compared using ANCOVA. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients with refractory GAD were treated with pregabalin and 126 SSRI/SNRI. Compared with SSRI/SNRI, pregabalin was associated with significantly lower percentage of benzodiazepines users; 57.0% vs 87.3%, p<0.001, and greater reduction in medical visits; -15.1 vs -13.0, p=0.029. Mean total healthcare resource utilization costs decreased significantly in the pregabalin cohort only; -289 (p=0.003), although six months costs were not significantly different in both groups; 977 vs 822, respectively. CONCLUSION: Initiating treatment with pregabalin was associated with significant reduction in medical visits and total health care resource costs of GAD compared to SSRI/ SNRI in BR patients in the Spanish NHS setting. Compared with SSRI/SNRI, pregabalin therapy was accompanied by significantly less percentage of patients on concomitant benzodiazepines therapy.

The assessment of generalized anxiety disorder: psychometric validation of the Spanish version of the self-administered GAD-2 scale in daily medical practice.

AIM: To psychometrically validate the Spanish version of the self-administered 2-item GAD-2 scale for screening probable patients with generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: The GAD-2 was self-administered by patients diagnosed with GAD according to DSM-IV criteria and by age- and sex-matched controls who were recruited at random in mental health and primary care centres. Criteria validity was explored using ROC curve analysis, and sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were determined for different cut-off values. Concurrent validity was also established using the HAM-A, HADS, and WHODAS II scales. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 212 subjects (106 patients with GAD) with a mean age of 50.38 years (SD = 16.76). No items of the scale were left blank. Floor and ceiling effects were negligible. No patients with GAD had to be assisted to complete the questionnaire. Reliability (internal consistency) was high; Cronbach's α = 0.875. A cut-off point of 3 showed adequate sensitivity (91.5%) and specificity (85.8%), with a statistically significant area under the curve (AUC = 0.937, p < 0.001), to distinguish GAD patients from controls. Concurrent validity was also high and significant with HAM-A (0.806, p < 0.001), HADS (anxiety domain, 0.825, p < 0.001) and WHO-DAS II (0.642, p < 0.001) scales. CONCLUSION: The Spanish version of the GAD-2 scale has been shown to have appropriate psychometric properties to rapidly detect probable cases of GAD in the Spanish cultural context under routine clinical practice conditions.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the effect of pregabalin versus usual care in the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain in routine medical practice in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin vs usual care (UC) in outpatients with refractory neuropathic pain (NeP), treated according to routine medical practice in primary care settings in Spain. METHODS: Patients were extracted from a 12-week noninterventional prospective study conducted to ascertain the costs of NeP. Pairs of pregabalin-naïve patients receiving UC or pregabalin, matched by age, gender, pain intensity, and refractory to previous treatment, were selected in a 1:1 ratio. Refractory was considered a patient with actual pain (scoring >40 in a 100 mm in a pain visual analog scale) after receiving a course of a standard analgesic, at its recommended doses. Perspectives of the Spanish National Healthcare System and society were included in the analysis. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain. Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were expressed as an incremental cost per QALY (ICER) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using bootstrapping techniques was also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 160 pairs were extracted. Compared with UC, pregabalin was associated with significantly higher QALY gain; 0.0374 ± 0.0367 vs 0.0224 ± 0.0313 (P < 0.001). Despite drug acquisition costs being higher for pregabalin (€251 ± 125 vs €104 ± 121; P < 0.001), total and health care costs incurred for pregabalin were similar in both groups; €1,335 ± 1,302 vs €1,387 ± 1,489 (P = 0.587) and €529 ± 438 vs €560 ± 672 (P = 0.628), respectively, yielding a dominant ICER for both total and health care costs in the base case scenario; 95% confidence intervals, respectively, dominant to €17,268, and dominant to €6,508. Sensitivity analysis confirmed results of the basecase scenario. CONCLUSION: This study showed that pregabalin may be cost-effective in the treatment of refractory NeP patients when compared with UC in routine medical practice in Spain.

Dose and aging effect on patients reported treatment benefit switching from the first overactive bladder therapy with tolterodine ER to fesoterodine: post-hoc analysis from an observational and retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Previous randomized studies have demonstrated that fesoterodine significantly improves the Overactive Bladder (OAB) symptoms and their assessment by patients compared with tolterodine extended-release (ER). This study aimed to assess the effect of aging and dose escalation on patient-reported treatment benefit, after changing their first Overactive Bladder (OAB) therapy with tolterodine-ER to fesoterodine in daily clinical practice. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of data from a retrospective, cross-sectional and observational study was performed in a cohort of 748 OAB adults patients (OAB-V8 score ≥8), who switched to fesoterodine from their first tolterodine-ER-based therapy within the 3-4 months before study visit. Effect of fesoterodine doses (4 mg vs. 8 mg) and patient age (<65 yr vs. ≥65 yr) were assessed. Patient reported treatment benefit [Treatment Benefit Scale (TBS)] and physician assessment of improvement with change [Clinical Global Impression of Improvement subscale (CGI-I)] were recorded. Treatment satisfaction, degree of worry, bother and interference with daily living activities due to urinary symptoms were also assessed. RESULTS: Improvements were not affected by age. Fesoterodine 8 mg vs. 4 mg provides significant improvements in terms of treatment benefit [TBS 97.1% vs. 88.4%, p < 0.001; CGI-I 95.8% vs. 90.8% p < 0.05)], degree of worry, bother and interference with daily-living activities related to OAB symptoms (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A change from tolterodine ER therapy to fesoterodine with dose escalation to 8 mg in symptomatic OAB patients, seems to be associated with greater improvement in terms of both patient-reported-treatment benefit and clinical global impression of change. Improvement was not affected by age.

The cost of generalized anxiety disorder in primary care settings: results of the ANCORA study.

To assess the cost of illness of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in a primary healthcare setting in Spain. A cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted. The sample comprised patients diagnosed with GAD according to ICD-10 criteria and a control group. Healthcare/non-healthcare resource utilization was recorded retrospectively for the 12 months prior to the study visit. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective. Two models have been produced to study the variables that influence the cost of the illness both, without and with controls. The study enrolled 456 patients [76.8 % women, 49.2 (17.0) years] with GAD and 74 controls without GAD [42.5 % women, 47.9 (16.7) years]. 67.8 % of subjects were on combination therapy (antidepressant + anxiolytic); 6 % were using 2 or more drugs to treat anxiety; and 23.4 % were on monotherapy. Total annual average costs were higher in the GAD group (€7,739 vs. €2,609), with mean costs attributable to GAD of €5,139 (healthcare costs: €1,329, indirect costs: 75 % of total cost, approximately). Age and health status measured by Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and clinical global impression were related to costs. The improvements in quality of life measured by EQ-5D index are associated to lower cost. GAD treated in Spanish primary healthcare settings generated considerable healthcare costs and, particularly, loss-of-productivity costs.

Costs and health resources utilization following switching to pregabalin in individuals with gabapentin-refractory neuropathic pain: a post hoc analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze the changes in pain severity and associated costs resulting from resource utilization and reduced productivity in patients with gabapentin-refractory peripheral neuropathic pain who switched to pregabalin therapy in primary care settings in Spain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a 12-week, multicentre, noninterventional cost-of-illness study. Patients were included in the study if they were over 18 years of age and had a diagnosis of chronic, treatment-refractory peripheral neuropathic pain. The analysis included all pregabalin-naïve patients who had previously shown an inadequate response to gabapentin and switched to pregabalin. Severity of pain before and after treatment with pregabalin, alone or as an add-on therapy, was assessed using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and its related visual analogue scale (VA). Healthcare resource utilization, productivity (including lost-workday equivalents [LWDE]), and related costs were assessed at baseline and after pregabalin treatment. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients switched to pregabalin had significant and clinically relevant reductions in pain severity (mean [SD] change on SF-MPQ VA scale, -31.9 [22.1]; P < 0.05 vs. baseline; effect size, 1.87). Reduction in pain was similar with both pregabalin monotherapy and add-on therapy. Significant reductions in healthcare resource utilization (concomitant drug use [in pregabalin add-on group], ancillary tests, and unscheduled medical visits) were observed at the end of trial. Additionally, there were substantial improvements in productivity, including a reduction in the number of LWDE following pregabalin treatment (-18.9 [26.0]; P < 0.0001). These changes correlated with substantial reductions in both direct (-652.9 ± 1622.4 €; P < 0.0001) and indirect healthcare costs (-851.6 [1259.6] €; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The cost of care in patients with gabapentin-refractory peripheral neuropathic pain appeared to be significantly reduced after switching to pregabalin treatment, alone or in combination with other analgesic drugs, in a real-life setting.