Synchronization of administrations of chemotherapy and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and frequency of associated healthcare visits.

PURPOSE: The erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), darbepoetin alfa (DA), and epoetin alfa (EA) differ with respect to dosing schedule in chemotherapy-induced anemia. DA can be administered less frequently than EA, which may increase synchronicity between chemotherapy and ESA schedules. This study compared DA and EA with respect to frequency of synchronization and frequencies of total and ESA healthcare visits in current clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of ESA utilization during ESA episodes of care was conducted on all cancer patients identified in the SDI health oncology electronic medical records database who underwent chemotherapy and received ESA therapy from July 1, 2007 to March 31, 2010 (n = 6522 DA, n = 3,439 EA). RESULTS: The frequency of synchronization (chemotherapy and ESA therapy on the same day) was higher with DA (67 %) than EA (58 %) (p < 0.001). The odds that an ESA administration was synchronized with chemotherapy were higher with DA compared with EA (odds ratio = 1.46, 95 % CI: 1.37, 1.54). Compared with EA, DA patients had 2.3 fewer visits with an ESA administration (p < 0.001) and 3.0 fewer total visits (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients receiving EA, DA patients were more likely to have an ESA administration on the same healthcare visit as chemotherapy and had fewer visits for any cause or for ESA administration. These results suggest that through greater synchronization of ESA and chemotherapy administrations, DA may reduce patient and practice burden and healthcare utilization.

Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent (ESA) Practice Patterns in Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia (CIA) Treated at Hospital Oncology Clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) usage initiated in hospital outpatient oncology centers that employ weekly (QW) and every-3-week (Q3W) ESA dosing regimens; describe the frequency of ESA dosing, transfusions, hemoglobin determinations, and anemia-related visits between these 2 regimens; and compare the rates at which inpatient ESA doses are administered on QW versus Q3W schedules. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational record review evaluating ESA usage in 641 patients from 8 outpatient oncology clinics throughout the United States. Adult patients who initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy for a documented solid tumor between August 1, 2007 and June 30, 2009 and received their first 3 consecutive outpatient ESA doses on a QW or Q3W schedule were eligible for study inclusion. During a single course of chemotherapy, ESA administrations were recorded as long as ESA therapy was continued on the initial regimen. ESA doses were captured until termination of ESA therapy, until 9 months had elapsed since the first ESA dose, until the patient was switched to another ESA regimen, or until death. ESA administration during inpatient admissions was also recorded. RESULTS: ESA utilization varied between the dosing groups, with fewer ESA doses administered per follow-up month in patients receiving Q3W versus QW ESA therapy (mean, 1 vs 2 doses). Compared to weekly administration, extended-dose ESA therapy also reduced the number of hemoglobin determinations and anemia-related visits without chemotherapy required per follow-up month. Neither the number of transfusions nor the number of packed red blood cell units administered per follow-up month differed between treatment groups. Compared to weekly ESA therapy, Q3W administration reduced costs associated with ESA prescribing and utilization. CONCLUSION: Extended-dose ESA therapy (Q3W dosing) may improve practice efficiency and may be associated with reduced frequencies of hemoglobin determinations and ESA doses required. Q3W dosing may also reduce inpatient ESA utilization by reducing the number of ESA doses required for previously maintained outpatients.

Q-TWiST analysis of ixabepilone in combination with capecitabine on quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with ixabepilone and capecitabine (cape) is approved for use in patients with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer that is resistant to treatment with anthracyclines or taxanes. The current study evaluated the trade-off between quality and quantity of life using quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) outcomes. METHODS: Within the trial, 752 women were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of ixabepilone and cape (once every 21 days) or cape alone (on days 1-14). The area under the survival curve was partitioned into 3 health states: toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity, and recurrence (relapse [REL]). The mean time in each health state was weighted by a range of utilities and summed to estimate quality-adjusted survival (QAS). Patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Breast Symptom Index (FBSI). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between groups with regard to change from baseline FBSI scores favoring the cape group was observed (P = .0002), but no differences were observed after adjusting for deaths in the analysis. All combinations of utilities for REL and TOX resulted in an observed difference in QAS favoring combination therapy. Differences were found to be statistically significant for comparisons, with higher tolerance for TOX. QAS was found to be greater for the combination therapy group (42.2 weeks vs 38.4 weeks), assuming the base case scenario of utility equal to 0.5 for both TOX and REL (P = .0227). CONCLUSIONS: The Q-TWiST analysis supports a positive benefit-risk ratio for the combination of ixabepilone plus cape in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer that is refractory to anthracyclines and taxanes versus cape alone, despite the potential for added toxicities with combination therapy.

Advanced cutaneous malignant melanoma: a systematic review of economic and quality-of-life studies.

OBJECTIVE: Metastatic melanoma (MM), a major concern for health-care providers, is increasing. We systematically reviewed published articles describing the impact of interventions (drugs and screening) on quality of life (QoL) in patients with MM, and articles that measured QoL in MM. METHODS: We searched secondary databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and DARE from inception to 2006 using MESH terms "melanoma" and "metastases." Economic articles were subject to established quality assessment procedures. RESULTS: We found 13 QoL and five economic studies (three cost-effectiveness, two cost-utility; average quality = 83% +/- 7%). No strong evidence was found in this review for cost-effectiveness of interferons in Canada (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $55,090/quality-adjusted life-year) or temozolomide in the United States (ICER = $36,990/Life-year gained based on nonsignificant efficacy differences). Melanoma screening was not cost-effective in the United States ($150,000-931,000/life-saved) or Germany (no survival benefit). From the 13 QoL studies,eight measured baseline QoL; six studied the same population, generating similar results using different approaches/outcomes. Tools used included GLQ-8, QLQ-C30, QLQ-36, QWB-SA, and SF-36. Baseline scores QoL scores ranged from 0.60 to 0.69. Another five studies (N = 959 patients) were randomized trials analyzing QoL in patients treated with dacarbazine alone, dacarbazine +/- interferon, dacarbazine + fotemustine, interleukin +/- histamine, and temozolomide. Little difference was found in QoL scores between drugs or between baseline and end point. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness has not been widely demonstrated for treatment of MM. Only two studies with unimpressive results exist for treatments. Screening was not cost-effective in the United States or Germany. Generally, no significant improvements in QoL were found for any alternative for treating MM. A need exists for effective treatments that improve duration and QoL.

Changes in weight and weight-related quality of life in a multicentre, randomized trial of aripiprazole versus standard of care.

BACKGROUND: This is a secondary analysis of clinical trial data collected in 12 European countries. We examined changes in weight and weight-related quality of life among community patients with schizophrenia treated with aripiprazole (ARI) versus standard of care (SOC), consisting of other marketed atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone). METHOD: Five-hundred and fifty-five patients whose clinical symptoms were not optimally controlled and/or experienced tolerability problems with current medication were randomized to ARI (10-30 mg/day) or SOC. Weight and weight-related quality of life (using the IWQOL-Lite) were assessed at baseline, and weeks 8, 18 and 26. Random regression analysis across all time points using all available data was used to compare groups on changes in weight and IWQOL-Lite. Meaningful change from baseline was also assessed. RESULTS: Participants were 59.7% male, with a mean age of 38.5 years (SD 10.9) and mean baseline body mass index of 27.2 (SD 5.1). ARI participants lost an average of 1.7% of baseline weight in comparison to a gain of 2.1% by SOC participants (p<0.0001) at 26 weeks. ARI participants experienced significantly greater increases in physical function, self-esteem, sexual life, and IWQOL-Lite total score. At 26 weeks, 20.7% of ARI participants experienced meaningful improvements in IWQOL-Lite score, versus 13.5% of SOC participants. A clinically meaningful change in weight was also associated with a meaningful change in quality of life (p<0.001). A potential limitation of this study was its funding by a pharmaceutical company. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to standard of care, patients with schizophrenia treated with aripiprazole experienced decreased weight and improved weight-related quality of life over 26 weeks. These changes were both statistically and clinically significant.

Treatments for metastatic melanoma: synthesis of evidence from randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Advanced melanomas (non-resectable Stage-III/IV) are fatal, with few effective treatments. It remains unclear if other drugs offer improvements over the standard, dacarbazine. PURPOSE: We quantified objective response rates (Complete+Partial response) of dacarbazine versus comparators for advanced cutaneous melanoma. METHODS: We retrieved all head-to-head randomized controlled trials involving dacarbazine and other drugs/combinations. Two reviewers searched MEDLINE (1966-Jan 2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006) and Cochrane library, then compared results. Differences were resolved through consensus. Rates were combined using random effects meta-analysis. chi2 tested heterogeneity; points from Jadad's method were assessed to examine study quality. RESULTS: We found 48 studies having 111 active treatment arms [24 with dacarbazine monotherapy (n=1390), 75 with dacarbazine combinations (n=4962), and 12 with non-dacarbazine treatments (n=783)] treating 7135 patients. Overall, study quality was poor. Response to dacarbazine monotherapy ranged between 5.3% and 28.0% (average 15.3%), OR=1.31, CI(95%): 1.06-1.61; N=3356. Partial responses comprised 73% of successes. Only adding interferons improved response rates (OR=1.69, CI(95%): 1.07-2.68, N=778) but survival duration was not significantly longer (P=0.32), and trials with larger sample sizes found lower success rates. All other treatments alone or in combination were ineffective P>0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Dacarbazine generally produces poor outcomes. Adding other therapies offers minimal clinical advantages (possibly with interferons). In general, study quality was poor and sample sizes were small. This meta-analysis highlights the unmet need for effective treatment options for advanced melanoma.

Use of effect size to determine optimal dose of duloxetine in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: At effective doses, patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine have been found to experience significant symptom improvement as measured by HAMD(17) total score. In addition, duloxetine-treated patients have significantly higher remission and response rates compared with placebo. The objective of this analysis is to determine the optimal dose of duloxetine in MDD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Effect size for duloxetine 40mg, 60mg, 80mg, and 120mg per day were estimated using all 6 acute phase III clinical trials in patients with MDD. The tolerability of duloxetine 40mg, 60mg, 80mg, and 120mg were evaluated using pooled data from the 6 studies. The primary efficacy measure in all trials was the HAMD(17) total score, from which were determined the effect size for HAMD(17) change scores, response rates (50% reduction from baseline to endpoint), and remission rates (HAMD(17) total score < or =7). RESULTS: A total of 1619 randomized patients were included in these studies, of which 632 were treated with placebo; 177 with duloxetine 40mg/day; 251 with 60mg/day; 363 with 80mg/day; and 196 with 120mg/day. An evaluation of increments in effect size between doses consistently showed that the most notable gain in effect size for efficacy was the 40-60mg/day dosage range. All dosages from 60 to 120mg were effective. The tolerability assessment indicated duloxetine at 40-120mg/day is well tolerated. Furthermore, the initial doses of 40-80mg/day were found to have comparable tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: The effect size analyses demonstrate that duloxetine 40mg has minimum efficacy, and that duloxetine 60-120mg/day is effective in the treatment of patients with MDD. An initial dose less than 60mg/day might provide better tolerability for some patients diagnosed with MDD.

Risk of diabetes mellitus associated with atypical antipsychotic use among Medicaid patients with bipolar disorder: a nested case-control study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of diabetes mellitus associated with atypical antipsychotics compared with conventional antipsychotics in managed care Medicaid patients with bipolar disorder. DESIGN: Retrospective nested case-control study. DATA SOURCE: Integrated seven-state Medicaid managed care claims database from January 1, 1998-December 31, 2002. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-three patients with diabetes (cases) and 1134 controls matched by age, sex, and the index date on which bipolar disorder was diagnosed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cases were defined as those having an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis of diabetes or those receiving treatment with antidiabetic drugs. Both case and control patients had at least a 3-month exposure to either conventional or atypical antipsychotic agents or three filled prescriptions related to treatment for bipolar disorder. Of the 283 cases, 139 (49%) received atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and clozapine) and 133 (47%) were prescribed conventional antipsychotics. To compare the risk for new-onset diabetes associated with atypical versus conventional antipsychotics, we conducted a Cox proportional hazard regression, in which we controlled for age; sex; duration of bipolar disorder follow-up; use of lithium, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and other drugs; and psychiatric and medical comorbidities. Compared with patients receiving conventional antipsychotics, the risk of diabetes was greatest among patients taking risperidone (hazard ratio [HR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-5.3), olanzapine (3.7, 95% CI 2.5-5.3), and quetiapine (2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.3). The risk for developing diabetes was also associated with weight gain (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.9-3.4), hypertension (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2), and substance abuse (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine are all associated with development or exacerbation of diabetes mellitus in patients with bipolar disorder. When prescribing therapy for this patient population, metabolic complications such as diabetes, weight gain, and hypertension need to be considered.

Risk of diabetes mellitus associated with atypical antipsychotic use among patients with bipolar disorder: A retrospective, population-based, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced diabetes onset has not been adequately quantified in patients with bipolar disorder, although atypical antipsychotics have been widely used as new mood stabilizers. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the association between atypical antipsychotics and diabetes mellitus. METHOD: A retrospective, population-based, case-control study was conducted using the medical claims database from U.S. managed care organizations from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2002. Nine hundred twenty incident cases of diabetes were matched with 5258 controls by age, sex, and bipolar index month and year. Diabetes cases were identified by either diagnosis of ICD-9 codes or diabetic medications. Patients with diabetes had a minimum 3-month exposure to any medications or at least 3 prescriptions for their bipolar or comorbidity treatment. Cox proportional hazard regression was conducted to assess the risk of diabetes associated with antipsychotic use. RESULTS: Of 920 cases, 41% received atypical antipsychotics (e.g., olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, clozapine) and 34% received conventional antipsychotics. Compared to patients receiving conventional antipsychotics, the risk of diabetes was greatest among patients taking clozapine (hazard ratio [HR] = 7.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7 to 28.9), risperidone (HR = 3.4, 95% CI = 2.8 to 4.2), olanzapine (HR = 3.2, 95% CI = 2.7 to 3.8), and quetiapine (HR = 1.8, 95% CI =1.4 to 2.4), with controlling covariates of age; sex; duration of follow-up; use of lithium, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, or concomitant drugs; and psychiatric and medical comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Development or exacerbation of diabetes mellitus is associated with antipsychotic use in bipolar patients. Metabolic complications are a major issue in patients receiving antipsychotic therapy. Thus, the propensity of an antipsychotic to induce diabetes should be a consideration when selecting an agent for patients with bipolar disorder.

The Daily Activity Report (DAR) a Novel Measure of Functional Outcome for Serious Mental Illness.

The assessment of real-world functional outcomes in clinical trials for medications targeting negative symptoms and cognitive impairment is extremely important. We tested the psychometric properties of the Daily Activity Report (DAR), a novel assessment of productive daily activity. We administered the DAR and additional assessments of functional outcome, functional capacity, cognition and symptomatology to 50 individuals with schizophrenia at 2 time points, 1 month apart and to 25 healthy controls. The DAR records a person's daily activity for 7 consecutive days based upon phone calls made 3 times a day. A total score and scores in 3 domains; instrumental activities (ie, independent living), social and work or school related activities are generated for the DAR. Inter-item consistency was high 0.89-0.94 for each domain and 0.88 overall. Test-retest reliability across 1 month for the total DAR score was 0.67,P< .0001. The total DAR score as well as scores for social activity and nondomestic work/school differed significantly between control and patient participants (P< .0001). DAR domain scores were associated with negative symptoms and functional outcomes, but the primary score related to these measures was the work/school dimension of the DAR. DAR scores were only weakly and nonsignificantly related to positive symptoms. This study provides preliminary support for the reliability and validity of the DAR using interviewer administration. The development of a patient reported version of the DAR using smart phone technology with automatic scoring is the next step.

Validation of the Investigator's Assessment Questionnaire, a new clinical tool for relative assessment of response to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

The success of long-term therapy in schizophrenia is contingent upon real-world effectiveness or improvements in several domains, including efficacy, safety and tolerability. This report describes the Investigator's Assessment Questionnaire (IAQ), a new 10-item instrument designed to assess relative effectiveness (efficacy, safety and tolerability) of antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. To measure content validity, 300 psychiatrists rated the importance of the IAQ items. Efficacy (i.e., positive and negative symptoms) was considered most important, but importance scores relative to the mean ranged only from 0.87 to 1.18, suggesting similar importance of the items. Cronbach's coefficient alpha values showed that the items were internally consistent. Factor analyses indicated that all IAQ items belong to a single domain. Data from the US Broad Effectiveness Trial of Aripiprazole were used for construct validation. Total IAQ score correlated significantly with time to treatment discontinuation (r=-0.50), Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score (r=0.76) and medication preference of patients (r=0.71) or caregivers (r=0.70). A one-unit decrease in IAQ score corresponded to an additional 1.35 days in the study and a decrease in CGI-I of 0.21 units. These results provide initial validation of the IAQ as a tool for evaluating antipsychotic response in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Response, partial response, and nonresponse in primary care treatment of depression.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are one of the most common reasons for visits to primary care physicians. This study identifies factors related to poor response to depression treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in primary care settings by (1) examining clinical response taking into account treatment, (2) comparing baseline characteristics and outcomes between patients classified by response, and (3) examining characteristics predicting poor response. METHODS: A Randomized Trial Investigating SSRI Treatment (ARTIST) was a prospective naturalistic trial comparing effectiveness of SSRI therapy. Eligible patients were randomized to treatment (N = 601) and followed up for 9 months. Treatment patterns were classified as "adequate" (6-month continuous medication), "aggressive" (defined by a treatment algorithm), or "inadequate" (discontinuations) by patient-reported medication use. Clinical response was determined by use of the Symptom Checklist-20 (SCL-20), with patients classified as remitters (score < or =6), partial remitters (50% decrease in symptoms), or nonresponders. Groups were compared on baseline characteristics, functioning, and treatment patterns. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine predictors of response. RESULTS: Of patients completing 6-month evaluations (n = 482), 46% were classified as nonresponders. Additionally, 53% (n = 256) received adequate therapy but did not achieve remission and 13% (n = 61) had aggressive therapy associated with treatment resistance. Significant predictors of nonresponse included older age, diagnosis, worse physical functioning, and lower energy level. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of adequately treated patients did not respond to antidepressant therapy. Some of these patients may be considered undertreated or treatment-resistant according to current treatment guidelines recommending dose increases or medication switches for less than adequate clinical response.

Identification of a claims data "signature" and economic consequences for treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating condition with significant economic consequences. Conservative estimates indicate that between 10% and 20% of all individuals with MDD are treatment resistant. The objectives for this study were (1) to use current treatment strategies identified in the literature to evaluate the validity of studying treatment-resistant depression (TRD) using claims data and (2) to estimate cost differences between TRD-likely and TRD-unlikely patients identified by use of treatment patterns. METHOD: The data source consisted of medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims from a Fortune 100 manufacturer for 1996 through 1998 (N = 125,242 continuously enrolled beneficiaries between the ages of 18 and 64 years). The sample included individuals with medical or disability claims for MDD (NMDD = 4186). A treatment pattern algorithm was applied to classify adult MDD patients into TRD-likely (NTRD = 487) and TRD-unlikely groups. Resource utilization and costs were compared among TRD-likely and TRD-unlikely patients and a random sample of average beneficiaries (i.e., 10% of all beneficiaries) for 1998. RESULTS: Consistent with the epidemiologic literature, the algorithm classified 12% of the MDD sample as TRD-likely. Mean annual costs were $10,954 for TRD-likely patients, $5025 for TRD-unlikely patients, and $3006 for average beneficiaries. TRD-likely patients used almost twice as many medical services as did TRD-unlikely patients and incurred significantly greater indirect costs (p < .0001). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use an administrative dataset to develop a claim-based treatment algorithm to identify TRD-likely patients. Resource utilization by TRD-likely patients was substantial, not only for direct treatment of depression but also for treatment of comorbid medical conditions. Additionally, TRD imposed on employers substantial indirect costs resulting from high rates of depression-associated disability.

The economic burden of depression in the United States: how did it change between 1990 and 2000?

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of depression was estimated to be 43.7 billion dollars in 1990. A subsequent study reported a cost burden of 52.9 billion dollars using revised prevalence data and a refined workplace cost estimation approach. The objective of the current report is to provide a 10-year update of these estimates using the same methodological framework. METHOD: Using a human capital approach, we developed prevalence-based estimates of 3 major cost categories: (1) direct costs, (2) mortality costs arising from depression-related suicides, and (3) costs associated with depression in the workplace. Cost-of-illness estimates from 1990 were updated to reflect the experience in 2000 using current epidemiologic data and publicly available population, wage, and cost information. RESULTS: Whereas the treatment rate of depression increased by over 50%, its economic burden rose by only 7%, going from 77.4 billion dollars in 1990 (inflation-adjusted dollars) to 83.1 billion dollars in 2000. Of the 2000 total, 26.1 billion dollars (31%) were direct medical costs, 5.4 billion dollars (7%) were suicide-related mortality costs, and 51.5 billion dollars (62%) were workplace costs. CONCLUSION: The economic burden of depression remained relatively stable between 1990 and 2000, despite a dramatic increase in the proportion of depression sufferers who received treatment. Future research will incorporate additional costs associated with depression sufferers, including the excess costs of their coexisting psychiatric and medical conditions and attention to the role of painful conditions as a driver of these costs.

Economic implications of treatment-resistant depression among employees.

BACKGROUND: Conservative estimates indicate between 10% and 20% of all individuals with major depressive disorders (MDDs) fail to respond to conventional antidepressant therapies. Amongst those with MDD, individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have been found to be frequent users of healthcare services and to incur significantly greater costs than those without TRD. Given the prevalence of the disorder, it is understandable that MDDs are responsible for a significant amount of both direct and indirect healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: To provide empirical findings for employees likely to have TRD based on analysis of employer claims data, in the context of previous research. METHODS: We conducted a claims data analysis of employees of a large national (US) employer. The data source consisted of medical, pharmaceutical and disability claims from a Fortune 100 manufacturer for the years 1996-1998 (total beneficiaries >100000). The employee sample included individuals with medical or disability claims for MDDs (n = 1692). A treatment pattern algorithm was applied to classify MDD patients into TRD-likely (n = 180) and TRD-unlikely groups. Treated prevalence of select comorbid conditions and the patient costs (direct and indirect) from the employer perspective by condition were compared among TRD-likely and TRD-unlikely employees, and with a 10% random sample of the overall employee population for 1998. RESULTS: The average annual cost of employees considered TRD-likely was dollars US 14490 per employee, while the cost for depressed but TRD-unlikely employees was dollars US 6665 per employee, and dollars US 4043 for the employee from the random sample. TRD beneficiaries used more than twice as many medical services compared with TRD-unlikely patients, and incurred significantly greater work loss costs. CONCLUSION: TRD has gained increasing recognition due to both the clinical challenges and economic burdens associated with the condition. TRD imposes a significant economic burden on an employer. TRD-likely employees are more likely to be treated for selected comorbid conditions and have higher medical and work loss costs across all conditions.

Transfusions and patient burden in chemotherapy-induced anaemia in France.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the patient burden in terms of the time spent on outpatient red blood cell (RBC) transfusions indicated for chemotherapy induced-anaemia (CIA) in patients with cancer in France. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with cancer receiving an outpatient RBC transfusion was conducted at seven treatment centres in France. Total treatment time for one transfusion visit per patient was measured as the elapsed time between pre- and post-transfusion vital sign assessment, including time from transfusion start to stop. Elapsed time from haemoglobin (Hb) level testing to transfusion start and from blood draw for compatibility testing to transfusion start were recorded. In addition, estimated travel time and distance to the transfusion centre, and clinical and demographic information were collected. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients [63.1% men; mean age 66.2 years, standard deviation (SD) 11.9] were enrolled in the study (1 August 2010-31 October 2010). The four most frequent diagnoses were lung cancer (31.1%), urological cancer (15.5%), gynecological cancer (14.6%) and gastrointestinal/colorectal cancer (14.6%). Mean elapsed time between prevital and postvital sign assessment was 4.0 h [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-6.1], including a mean of 3.4 h (95% CI 2.5-4.2) for the transfusion itself. Hb level testing (mean pre-transfusion Hb level 8.0 g/dl, SD 0.8) and blood draw for compatibility testing were completed in a mean of 28.8 h (95% CI 1.3-56.2) and 9.4 h (95% CI 0-21.4) prior to transfusion respectively. Patients' one-way mean travel time to the transfusion centre was 32.9 min (95% CI 28.5-37.4) and mean distance travelled was 25.4 km (95% CI 11.6-39.3). CONCLUSION: In France, CIA treatment with RBC transfusion is a time-consuming activity for patients that includes multiple trips to a medical facility, blood testing and the transfusion procedure itself. This burden is important to consider in the context of optimizing proactive monitoring and planning for supportive oncology care.

The burden of blood transfusion: a utilization and economic analysis--a pilot study in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA).

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to measure the burden of blood transfusion of Packed Red Blood Cells (PRBCs) in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) on the institutional outpatient transfusion center. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review (starting July 1, 2010, working backwards until 120 evaluable patients are accrued) at a single institutional transfusion center in the US. The mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for patient's age, pre-transfusion Hgb level, and other transfusion-related activities. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty records were reviewed. The majority included patients who were female (71%), African American (61%), and had either Medicare (48%) or private insurance (39%). The mean patient age was 59 years and the average pre-transfusion Hgb was 7.9 g/dL. The average patient visit to facility ranged from 213 min for one PRBC unit to 411 minutes for three PRBC units. The mean staff time for patient evaluation was 66 minutes. Actual time for transfusion was ∼100 min for each PRBC unit; 90% of patients received two PRBC units. Staff was engaged in direct patient care for an average of 322 min for two PRBC units. The labor cost of transfusion (in 2011 $US) ranged from $46.13-$49.33 per PRBC unit. The estimated fully loaded bundled cost was $596.49 for transfusion of one unit of PRBC. Limitations of the study include: the site included in this study may not be applicable to all sites in practice and the evaluated patient population was varied, with the exception that all patients were treated for some type of malignancy; and the review of blood bank records for 120 patients was not 120 independent events and, as such, may not have adequately captured actual variability. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis quantifies expense in terms of time for administration of the transfusion, as well as costs associated with outpatient blood transfusions.

Staff time and motion assessment for administration of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: a two-phase pilot study in clinical oncology practices.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are used for the management of anaemia in patients with non-myeloid malignancies where anaemia is due to the effect of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Assessing the impact of different ESA dosing regimens on office staff time and projected labour costs is an important component of understanding the potential for optimization of oncology practice efficiencies. OBJECTIVES: A two-phase study was conducted to evaluate staff time and labour costs directly associated with ESA administration in real-world oncology practice settings among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The objective of Phase 1 was to determine the mean staff time required for the process of ESA administration in patients with anaemia due to concomitantly administered chemotherapy. The objective of Phase 2 was to quantify and compare the mean staff time and mean labour costs of ESA administered once weekly (qw) with ESA once every 3 weeks (q3w) over an entire course of chemotherapy. METHODS: Phase 1 was a prospective, cross-sectional time and motion study conducted in six private oncology practices in the US based on nine steps associated with ESA administration. Using findings from Phase 1, Phase 2 was conducted as a retrospective chart review to collect data on the number and types of visits in two private oncology practices for patients receiving a complete course of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. RESULTS: In Phase 1, the mean total time that clinic staff spent on ESA administration was 23.2 min for patient visits that included chemotherapy administration (n(chemo) = 37) and 21.5 min when only ESA was administered (n(ESAonly) = 36). In Phase 2, the mean duration of treatment was significantly longer for q3w than qw (53.84 days for qw vs. 113.38 for q3w, p < 0.0001); thus, analyses were adjusted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for episode duration for between-group comparisons. Following adjustment by ANCOVA, qw darbepoetin alfa (DA) patients (n(qw) = 83) required more staff time for ESA + chemotherapy visits and ESA-only visits than q3w patients (n(q3w) = 118) over a course of chemotherapy. Overall, mean total staff time expended per chemotherapy course was greater for patients receiving qw versus q3w DA. Weekly DA dosing was associated with greater projected mean labour costs ($US38.16 vs. $US31.20 [average for 2007-2010]). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this real-world study demonstrate that oncology practices can attain staff time and labour costs savings through the use of q3w ESA. The degree of savings depends on the individual oncology practice's staffing model and ESA administration processes, including those that allow for optimized synchronization of patient visits for ESA and chemotherapy administration. These findings indicate that additional research using standard ESA administration protocols for longer periods of time with a larger number of oncology practices and patients should be conducted to confirm these findings.

Utilization and cost in clinical practice of darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa for anemia concomitant with chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the mean weekly dose ratio of epoetin alfa (EA) to darbepoetin alfa (DA) in clinical practice was estimated to be ∼400 to 1. In 2006, a 500-µg dose and new dosing schedule was approved for DA in the United States. In 2007, the warnings and dosing/administration sections were modified for both agents. All of these factors may have changed the way that physicians use EA and DA. Previous studies of the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with anemia concomitant with chemotherapy may thus not reflect current clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the use and costs of ESAs in clinical practice in patients with anemia concomitant with chemotherapy. METHODS: Using 2 large US health care claims databases, all adults (aged ≥18 years) were identified who received ESAs in 2008 and had evidence of receipt of chemotherapy ≤42 days before initial ESA receipt (ie, the index date). Episodes of care were defined as beginning on the index date and ending on the date of the last ESA claim that was followed by a ≥42-day gap without any receipt of ESAs, to which was added an assumed duration of clinical benefit (in days) based on the ESA and corresponding dose received. DA- and EA-treated patients were matched using propensity scoring. The mean weekly dose and cost of DA and EA during episodes of care was calculated using all information from relevant claims noted during such episodes. Each database was analyzed separately. RESULTS: In the first database, 475 patients with DA episodes of care were matched to an equal number of patients with EA episodes; in the second database, there were 424 matched pairs. In the first database, the mean (95% CI) weekly dose was 37,444 U (35,942 U-39,001 U) during EA episodes and 110 µg (108 µg-113 µg) during DA episodes; the mean weekly EA/DA dose ratio was 340 to 1. In the second database, the mean (95% CI) weekly dose was 37,047 U (35,944 U-38,175 U) during EA episodes and 121 µg (117 µg-125 µg) during DA episodes; the mean weekly EA/DA dose ratio was 306 to 1. CONCLUSIONS: The mean weekly EA/DA dose ratio during episodes of ESA care has declined in patients with anemia concomitant with chemotherapy, due at least in part to the availability and use of a new dose/dosing schedule for DA without similar changes for EA.

The Patient Assessment Questionnaire: initial validation of a measure of treatment effectiveness for patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

Investigation of patients' subjective perspective regarding the effectiveness - as opposed to efficacy - of antipsychotic medication has been hampered by a relative shortage of self-report measures of global clinical outcome. This paper presents data supporting the feasibility, inter-item consistency, and construct validity of the Patient Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ)-a self-report measure of psychiatric symptoms, medication side effects and general wellbeing, ultimately intended to assess effectiveness of interventions for schizophrenia-spectrum patients. The original 53-item instrument was developed by a multidisciplinary team which utilized brainstorming sessions for item generation and content analysis, patient focus groups, and expert panel reviews. This instrument and additional validation measures were administered, via Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (ACASI), to 300 stable, medicated outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Item elimination was based on psychometric properties and Item-Response Theory information functions and characteristic curves. Exploratory factor analysis of the resulting 40-item scale yielded a five factor solution. The five subscales (General Distress, Side Effects, Psychotic Symptoms, Cognitive Symptoms, Sleep) showed robust convergent (ß's=0.34-0.75, average ß=0.49) and discriminant validity. The PAQ demonstrates feasibility, reliability, and construct validity as a self-report measure of multiple domains pertinent to effectiveness. Future research needs to establish the PAQ's sensitivity to change.